Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim in Washington

Background

“CR 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” (See Swanigan v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F.A.M. Wash., No. 48631-8-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).)

“If a complaint does not comply with CR 8(a), the trial court may dismiss it for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6).” (See Becker v. Cmty. Health Sys., Inc. (2014)182 Wn.App. 935, 941, 332 P.3d 1085; Swanigan v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F.A.M. Wash., No. 48631-8-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).)

General Information for Complaints and Motions

“Under CR 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (See Swanigan v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F.A.M. Wash., No. 48631-8-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).)

“A complaint must contain allegations sufficient to provide a defendant with notice of what the claim is about and the grounds on which is rests.” (See Estate of Dormaier v. Columbia Basin Anesthesia, PLLC (2013) 171 Wn. App. 828, 854, 313 P.3d 431; Swanigan v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F.A.M. Wash., No. 48631-8-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).)

“The question is whether there are facts that conceivably could be raised that would support a legally sufficient claim.” (See Worthington v. WestNET (2015) 182 Wn.2d 500, 505, 341 P.3d 995.)

“Dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if the plaintiff cannot allege any set of facts that would justify recovery.” (See id; Swanigan v. Most Worshipful Prince Hall Grand Lodge F.A.M. Wash., No. 48631-8-II, at *1 (Wash. Ct. App. Feb. 28, 2017).)

Standard of Review and Burdens of Proof

“Under CR 12(b)(6), a complaint can be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (See Grace v. Hagy (2009) 153 Wn. App. 1007.)

“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim should not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of his claim.” (See Sherwood v. Moxee School Dist (1961) 58 Wn. 2d 351, 360 n.14.)

“Whether such a dismissal is appropriate is a question of law an appellate court reviews de novo.” (See Grace v. Hagy (2009) 153 Wn. App. 1007.)

“A dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the complaint, which would entitle the plaintiff to relief." (See Haberman v. Wash. Pub. Power Supply Sys. (1987) 109 Wn.2d 107, 120, 744 P.2d 1032, 750 P.2d 254; Grace v. Hagy (2009) 153 Wn. App. 1007.)

The Court’s Decisions

It is well settled that a “CR 12(b)(6) motion should be granted sparingly and with care and only in the unusual case in which plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief.” (See Grace v. Hagy (2009) 153 Wn. App. 1007.)

Furthermore, “dismissal of a claim under Rule 12(b) (6) is appropriate only if it can be said that there is no state of facts which the plaintiff could prove in support of entitling him to relief under his claim.” (See Hofto v. Blumer (1968) 74 Wn. 2d 321, 327.)