§12.7 Significant Authorities

• Jurisdiction: Washington

§12.7 SIGNIFICANT AUTHORITIES

A plaintiff states a claim upon which relief can be granted if it is possible that facts could be established to support the allegations in the complaint. McCurry v. Chevy Chase Bank, FSB, 169 Wn.2d 96, 101, 233 P.3d 861 (2010) (rejecting federal "plausibility" standard, which provides that the motion should be granted unless the claim is plausibly based upon the factual allegations in the complaint). On a CR 12(b)(6) motion, a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the plaintiff's allegations must be denied unless no state of facts that plaintiff could prove, consistent with the complaint, would entitle the plaintiff to relief on the claim. Halvorson v. Dahl,89 Wn.2d 673, 674, 574 P.2d 1190 (1978). Amotion to dismiss under CR 12(b)(6) must be denied unless it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief on the claim. Berge v. Gorton,88 Wn.2d 756, 759, 567 P.2d 187 (1977). Trial courts should dismiss a claim under CR 12(b)(6) only if it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that no facts exist that would justify recovery. Paradise, Inc. v. Pierce County,124 Wn.App. 759, 767, 102P.3d173 (2004).

In federal court, to survive a motion to dismiss under FED. R. CIV.. P. 12(b)(6), the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the alleged misconduct. Id. The "plausibility" standard is not equal to a "probability requirement," but it does require more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. Id. Although a court must accept the factual allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true, it is not required to accept legal conclusions couched as factual allegations as true. Id.

Dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) should only be granted sparingly and with great care. Bravo v. Dolsen Cos.,125 Wn.2d 745, 888 P.2d 147 (1995). Hypothetical facts can be used to defeat the motion, and the hypothetical facts can be raised for the first time on appeal. Id.

As a practical matter, a CR 12(b)(6) motion should only be granted in the unusual case in which the plaintiff includes allegations that demonstrate from the face of the complaint that...