927 F.3d 21
1st Cir.2019Background
- Plaintiff Lynn R. Ríos-Campbell sued the U.S. Department of Commerce and federal officials alleging national-origin discrimination and retaliation; second amended complaint filed after answer and discovery closed.
- Discovery closed March 31, 2016; defendants filed a fully developed Rule 56 motion for summary judgment with extensive exhibits; plaintiff opposed and defendants replied.
- Over a year later, the district court sua sponte treated the summary-judgment motion as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim and granted it, without prior notice or additional briefing.
- The district court later amended its order nunc pro tunc to reflect that it converted the summary-judgment motion into a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on plausibility grounds.
- Plaintiff appealed; the First Circuit focused its review on whether the district court abused its discretion by converting a fully developed summary-judgment motion into a motion to dismiss after discovery closed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court properly converted a fully developed Rule 56 motion into a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal after discovery closed | Conversion was improper because the motion was a summary-judgment motion filed after discovery and relied on evidence outside the pleadings | Conversion permissible; court applied plausibility standard to dismiss | Court held conversion was an abuse of discretion and vacated the dismissal; remanded for Rule 56 consideration |
| Whether plausibility (Rule 12(b)(6)) may be applied after substantial discovery and an answer has been filed | Plausibility inapplicable post-discovery; summary-judgment standard governs | Plausibility standard can still be applied to test complaint adequacy | Court held plausibility is a screening tool meant for early litigation; after answer and discovery, Rule 56 standard controls |
| Whether district courts may sua sponte change the procedural vehicle without notice | Plaintiff argued court should not ignore parties’ chosen procedural path or the developed record without notice or opportunity to brief | Defendants relied on merits of dismissal under plausibility | Court stressed need for notice; sua sponte reverse conversion without justification is improper |
| Whether any special circumstances justified departure from ordinary practice | Plaintiff: no special circumstances present | Defendants: none asserted | Court found no special circumstances or persuasive reasons to justify the reverse conversion |
Key Cases Cited
- Vélez v. Awning Windows, Inc., 375 F.3d 35 (1st Cir. 2004) (appellate review of district court case-management decisions is for abuse of discretion)
- Rubert-Torres v. Hosp. San Pablo, Inc., 205 F.3d 472 (1st Cir. 2000) (conversion of Rule 12 motion into summary-judgment motion reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Haley v. City of Boston, 657 F.3d 39 (1st Cir. 2011) (pleading must state a plausible claim under Iqbal/Twombly)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (articulating the plausibility pleading standard)
- Atieh v. Riordan, 727 F.3d 73 (1st Cir. 2013) (plausibility standard is a screening mechanism early in litigation)
- Grajales v. P.R. Ports Auth., 682 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2012) (plausibility is a threshold inquiry and meant to occur prior to discovery)
- Tobin v. Fed. Express Corp., 775 F.3d 448 (1st Cir. 2014) (summary judgment pierces pleadings to assess whether trial is required)
- Wynne v. Tufts Univ. Sch. of Med., 976 F.2d 791 (1st Cir. 1992) (summary-judgment purpose contrasted with pleading-stage screening)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading-stage refusal to permit discovery where complaint lacks plausibility)
- Patrick v. Rivera-Lopez, 708 F.3d 15 (1st Cir. 2013) (untimely Rule 12(b)(6) motions after responsive pleading are improper)
- Freeman v. Town of Hudson, 714 F.3d 29 (1st Cir. 2013) (some extrinsic documents may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion without converting it)
- Banco Santander de P.R. v. López-Stubbe (In re Colonial Mortg. Bankers Corp.), 324 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 2003) (documents incorporated by reference and matters of public record are proper on Rule 12 motions)
- Beddall v. State St. Bank & Tr. Co., 137 F.3d 12 (1st Cir. 1998) (documents central to complaint may merge into the pleadings)