“The standards governing a Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss are well settled.” (See Kaplan v. Stanley (2009) 186 Vt. 605, 607.)
“A motion for failure to state a claim may not be granted unless it is beyond doubt that there exist no facts or circumstances that would entitle the plaintiff to relief.” (See id.)
“In reviewing the disposition of such a motion, this Court assumes that all well pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are true, as well as all reasonable inferences that may be derived therefrom." (See id.)
“The question on review is whether the bare allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim, and [s]ince averments of time and place are material for testing the sufficiency of a complaint, defenses based on a failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations are properly raised in a motion to dismiss." (See id.)
“The motion tests whether the complaint adequately states a claim; thus, the court must restrict its inquiry to the facts alleged in the complaint.” (See Wentworth v. Crawford and Company (2002) 174 Vt. 118, 121.)
“In determining whether a complaint can survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), courts must take the factual allegations in the complaint as true.” (See Colby v. Umbrella, Inc. (2008) 184 Vt. 1, 5-6.)
“Motions to dismiss under V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) should be granted only where it is beyond doubt that there exist no facts or circumstances that would entitle . . . plaintiff to relief.” (See Leclair v. Reed (2007) 182 Vt. 594, 596.)
“We review the trial court's decision on a motion to dismiss de novo.” (See Boland v. Smith (2020) 237 A.3d 723, 725.)
“In reviewing the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss, we take all facts alleged in the complaint as true.” (See Bock v. Gold (2008) 184 Vt. 575, 576.)
It is well settled that “motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim are disfavored and are rarely granted.” (See Colby v. Umbrella, Inc. (2008) 184 Vt. 1, 6.)
As such, it is also well settled that “Vermont has a tradition of liberally allowing amendments to pleadings in part so that claims are decided based on their merits, not a technicality. The rules strike a balance between encouraging valid, yet undeveloped, claims while discouraging baseless or legally insufficient ones." (See McClellan v. Haddock (2017) 166 A.3d 579, 589.)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Your content views addon has successfully been added.
No Worries!
Adding your team is easy
in the "Manage Company Users" tab
