What Is a Motion to Dismiss?

General Definition

A motion to dismiss is a legal request made by a defendant in a lawsuit, asking the court to dismiss the case due to a lack of legal basis or a procedural deficiency in the plaintiff's complaint. This motion argues that, even if the plaintiff's allegations were true, they do not constitute a valid claim or the court lacks jurisdiction to hear the case. A successful motion to dismiss can end the litigation process early, saving time and resources. Understanding this motion is essential for comprehending the legal strategies employed by attorneys to protect their clients' interests.

Overview of State Court Authorities

Arkansas

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Arkansas Law

“Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) applies to two [types of] dismissals under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Rule 41(b) was intended to permit trial courts to clean up their dockets and get stale cases dismissed where the plaintiff fails to prosecute, fails to comply with rules, or fails to comply with any order of the court.” (Ballard Group, Inc. v. BP Lubricants USA, Inc. (2014) 436 S.W.3d 445, 458 citing Cory v. Mark Twain Life Ins. Corp. (1985) 286 Ark. 20…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Arkansas Law

“There is no reason why a court should not be allowed to raise the doctrine of forum non conveniens on its own but its decision must be supported by facts in the record.” (Country Pride Foods Ltd. v. Medina Medina (1983) 279 Ark. 75…)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Arkansas Law

“When personal jurisdiction is raised in a Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss, a circuit court must consider whether the undisputed facts as pled establish personal jurisdiction.” (Lawson v. Simmons Sporting Goods, Inc. (2019) 569 S.W.3d 865…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Arkansas Law

“Dismissal under Rule 12(b) is a ruling on the initial complaint alleging some critical deficiency, such as jurisdiction, service of process, or failure to state a claim.” (Wilson v. Adkins (1997) 57 Ark. App. 43…)

Arizona

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Arizona Law

“If the plaintiff has abandoned the case or caused delay that prejudiced the defendants, dismissal [for failure to prosecute] is the proper remedy.” (See Ariz. R. Civ. P. 41(b); Lee v. ANC Car Rental Corp., No. 1 CA-CV 14-0196…)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Arizona Law

“Because Rule 4(e)(2) has been interpreted to extend to the permissible limits of due process, the defendant's conduct necessarily satisfies the rule if the constitutionally required minimum contacts are present.” (See Armstrong v. Aramco Services Co. (1988) 155 Ariz. 345…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Arizona Law

“We will not overturn the trial court's ruling on the application of forum non conveniens absent an abuse of discretion.” (See Cal Fed Partners v. Heers (1987) 156 Ariz. 245, 751 P.2d 561; Coonley Coonley v. Turck (1993) 173 Ariz. 527…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Arizona Law

“Dismissal pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is appropriate if as a matter of law the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any interpretation of the facts.” (See Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Bradley (2012) 231 Ariz. 448, 453, ¶ 7, 296 P.3d 984…)

California

A motion to dismiss is the legal equivalent of a general demurrer. Citizens for Parental Rights v. San Mateo County Bd. of Educ. (1975) 51 Cal.App.3d 1, 34.

Colorado

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Colorado Law

It is well settled that “an unreasonable delay or lack of diligence in prosecution will justify dismissal, unless the plaintiff presents mitigating circumstances sufficient to excuse the delay.” (See Streu v. City of Colorado Springs (2010) 239 P.3d 1264…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Colorado Law

“In evaluating a C.R.C.P. 12(b)(5) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, we accept as true the factual allegations in the complaint and, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, determine whether the complaint states a plausible claim for relief.” (See Barnes v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (2021) 497 P.3d 5…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Colorado Law

“The thrust of the doctrine of Forum non conveniens is not to determine the perfect forum, but rather to provide a vehicle for choice between two or more alternative forums to avoid the hardship and expense of the one that is clearly inconvenient.” (See Mr. Steak, Inc. v. Ken-Mar Steaks, Inc. (1974) 522 P.2d 1246…)

Connecticut

Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens under Connecticut Law

“[T]he overriding inquiry in a forum non conveniens motion is not whether some other forum might be a good one, or even a better one than the [plaintiffs'] chosen forum. The question to be answered is whether…”

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Connecticut Law

When a defendant challenges personal jurisdiction in a motion to dismiss, the court must undertake a two part inquiry to determine the propriety of its exercising such jurisdiction over the defendant...

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute under Connecticut Law

Practice Book § 14-3 provides a mechanism for dismissing cases where a litigant has failed to prosecute her claim with reasonable diligence. That rule provides in relevant part that…

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Connecticut Law

Under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, failure to state a claim is a valid ground for dismissal. Under Connecticut practice, however, it is not…

Delaware

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Delaware Law

“A court must always be cautious, however, in dismissing an action for the failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and all inferences must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party — especially at a preliminary stage.” (See Michelson v. Duncan (1979) Del.Supr., 407 A.2d 211; Gabelli Co., Etc. v. Liggett Group, Inc. (1982) 444 A.2d 261, 266.)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Delaware Law

“Delaware's long arm statute, 10 Del. C. § 3104, sets forth in subsection (c) that a nonresident establishes legal presence within the State of Delaware when the nonresident: (1) Transacts any business or performs any character of work or service in the State; (2) Contracts to supply services or things in this State; (3) Causes tortious injury in the State by an act or omission in this State; (4) Causes tortious injury in the State or outside of the State by an act or omission outside the State if the person regularly does or solicits business, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in the State or derives substantial revenue from services, or things used or consumed in the State; (5) Has an interest in, uses or possesses real property in the State; or (6) Contracts to insure or act as surety for, or on, any person, property, risk, contract, obligation or agreement located, executed or to be performed within the State at the time the contract is made, unless the parties otherwise provide in writing.” (See Asbestos Litig. v. Dana Cos., C.A. No.: 13C-03-076, at *7 (Del. Super. Ct. Jan. 30, 2015).)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Delaware Law

It is well settled that “in order to prevail on a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, the moving defendant must demonstrate that it will face ‘overwhelming hardship’ if litigation proceeds in Delaware. Plaintiffs' choice of forum is entitled to respect unless Defendant demonstrates that litigating in Delaware is inappropriate and inconsistent with the administration of justice.” (See Lincoln Benefit Life Co. v. Wilmington Tr., N.A., C.A. No. N17C-08-301 ALR, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Apr. 5, 2018).)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Delaware Law

It is also well settled that “among the Court's inherent powers to manage its docket to prevent unnecessary and wasteful delay are Court of Chancery Rule 41(b) — authorizing dismissal [f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with [Court of Chancery] Rules or any order of court — and Rule 41(e) — authorizing dismissal of any cause pending wherein no action has been taken for a period of 1 year and where there has been no good reason for the inaction. . . The decision to dismiss under these rules is committed to the Court's discretion. In addition, [b]ecause both Chancery Rules 41(b) and 41(e) deal with inexcusable delay, they overlap somewhat.” (See Kinexus Representative v. Advent Software, C.A. No. 1161-VCN, at *2 (Del. Ch. June 30, 2011).

Florida

Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens under Florida Law

The Kinney Court held that a trial court presented with a motion to dismiss on the basis of forum non conveniens can go directly (meaning, without engaging in any federal venue-choice of law qualifying test), to a four-step analysis…

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute under Florida Law

The resolution of a motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute involves a two-step process: (1) the defendant is required to show there has been no record activity for the year preceding the motion; (2) if there has been no record activity…”

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Florida Law

"[A] motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is not a substitute for a motion for summary judgment, and in ruling on such a motion, the trial court is confined to a consideration of the…”

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction: under Florida Law

"First, it must be determined that the complaint alleges sufficient jurisdictional facts to bring the action within the ambit of the statute; and if it does, the next inquiry is whether sufficient ‘minimum contacts’ are demonstrated…”

Georgia

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Georgia Law

“A motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction must be granted if there are insufficient facts to support a reasonable inference that defendant can be subjected to the jurisdiction of the court.” (Millard v. Millard (1992) 204 Ga. App. 399…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Georgia Law

“Uniform Superior Court Rule 14 authorize[s] the trial court to dismiss for failure to prosecute.” (Lam v. Allstate Indem. Co., A13A1733, at *1 [Ga. Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2014] citing Unif. Sup. Ct. R. 14.)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Georgia Law

When a trial court considers such a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, it must apply the standard that appears in OCGA § 9–10–31.1(a), which states in relevant part: “If a court of this state, on written motion of a party, finds that in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties and witnesses a claim or action would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state ... the court shall decline to adjudicate the matter under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. As to a claim or action that would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state, the court shall dismiss the claim or action....” (Wang v. Liu (2013) 292 Ga. 568, 569 quoting OCGA § 9–10–31.1(a).)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Georgia Law

“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted should not be sustained unless: (1) the allegations of the complaint disclose with certainty that the claimant would not be entitled to relief under any state of provable facts asserted in support thereof; and (2) the movant establishes that the claimant could not possibly introduce evidence within the framework of the complaint sufficient to warrant a grant of the relief.” (Webb v. Bank of Am., N.A. (2014) 761 S.E.2d 485, 486 citing Austin v. Clark (2014) 294 Ga. 773, 774–775, 755.)

Idaho

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Idaho Law

“The Idaho Rules of Civil Procedure do not allow a party to ‘preserve the right’ to object to personal jurisdiction at a later date when filing a motion for change of venue under 12(b)(3).” (See Ponderosa Paint Manufacturing, Inc. v. Yack (1994) 125 Idaho 310…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Idaho Law

“I.R.C.P. 41(b) provides, inter alia, that a defendant may move for the dismissal of an action for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute.” (See Kirkham v. 4.60 Acres of Land in Vicinity of Inkom (1980) 100 Idaho 781 …)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Idaho Law

“Rule 12(b)(6), I.R.C.P., governs motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” (See Bissett v. Unnamed Members (1986) 111 Idaho 863…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Idaho Law

“Given the significance attached to forum selection clauses, the courts have placed a substantial burden on a plaintiff seeking to defeat such a clause, requiring it to demonstrate enforcement of the clause would be unreasonable under the circumstances of the case.” (See Off-Spec Sols. v. Transp. Inv'rs, LLC (2021) 168 Idaho 734…)

Illinois

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Illinois Law

“Rule 306(a)(2) recognizes that orders granting motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds are interlocutory and allows for permissive appeals from such orders.” (Kelsey v. Top Line Express, Inc., 2016 Ill. App. 160688, 6 [Ill. App. Ct. 2017].)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Illinois Law

The authority of the trial court to dismiss a plaintiff's action because of his failure to prosecute is necessary in order to prevent undue delays in the disposition of pending cases and to avoid congestion in the progress of trial calendars, and this power is of ancient origin.” (Robertson v. Western Bearings Co. (1964) 50 Ill. App. 2d 173, 182 citing Link v. Wabash R.R. Co. (1962) 370 U.S. 626…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Illinois Law

“[A] cause of action should not be dismissed pursuant to section 2-615 unless it is clearly apparent that no set of facts can be proved that would entitle the plaintiff to recovery.” (Marshall v. Burger King Corp. (2006) 222 Ill. 2d 422, 429-30 citing Canel v. Topinka (2004) 212 Ill. 2d 311…)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Illinois Law

“The exercise of personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant is governed by the Illinois long-arm statute, section 2-209 of the Code of Civil Procedure [735 ILCS 5/2-209 (West 2018)].) Subsection (a) provides different actions by a defendant that will subject him or her to Illinois jurisdiction, including ‘[t]he commission of a tortious act within this State.’” (Lusk v. The Unckrich Corp., 2021 Ill. App. 5th 200368, 5 [Ill. App. Ct. 2021] quoting and citing § 2-209(a)(2).)

Indiana

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Indiana Law

“We will reverse a Trial Rule 41(E) dismissal for failure to prosecute only in the event of a clear abuse of discretion.” (See Olson v. Alick's Drugs (2007) 863 N.E.2d 314…)

Massachusetts

Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens under Massachusetts Law

Because the doctrine of “forum non conveniens is not a substantive right of the parties, but a procedural rule of the forum,” a Massachusetts forum must apply its own procedural law when reviewing a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens…

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under Massachusetts Law

“To survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Mass R. Civ. P. 12 (b) (6), a complaint must contain factual allegations plausibly suggesting (not merely consistent with) an entitlement to relief.”

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Massachusetts Law

“The Massachusetts long-arm statute enumerates eight specific grounds on which a nonresident defendant may be subjected to personal jurisdiction by a court of the Commonwealth.”

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute under Massachusetts Law

Rule 41(b)(2) of the Massachusetts Rules of Civil Procedure provides as follows: “On motion of the defendant, with notice, the court may, in its discretion, dismiss any action for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of court…”

Michigan

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Michigan Law

“Forum non conveniens is a common-law doctrine defined as ‘the discretionary power of court to decline jurisdiction when convenience of parties and ends of justice would be better served if action were brought and tried in another forum.’” (Hernandez v. Ford Motor (2008) 760 N.W.2d 751…)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Michigan Law

“MCR 2.116(D)(1) requires that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction ‘be raised in a party's first motion under [MCR 2.116] or in the party's responsive pleading, whichever is filed first, or [it is] waived.’ However, MCR 2.111(F)(3) provides that ‘[a]ffirmative defenses must be stated in a party's responsive pleading, either as originally filed or as amended in accordance with MCR 2.118.’” (Robert A Hansen Family Trust v. FGH Industries, LLC (2008) 760 N.W.2d 526…)

Minnesota

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Minnesota Law

“Motions to dismiss under rule 12.02 for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted test only the sufficiency of the pleadings.” (See Schuler v. Meschke (1989) 435 N.W.2d 156…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Minnesota Law

"The first step in a forum non conveniens analysis is for the district court to establish the existence of an available and adequate forum.” (See Sugarman v. Muddy Waters Capital, LLC, No. A22-0659, at *5 (Minn. Ct. App. Nov. 14, 2022).)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Minnesota Law

“Minnesota Statute subsection 543.19 sets forth when Minnesota courts may take jurisdiction over nonresident defendants.” (See Valspar Corp. v. Lukken Color Corp. (1993) 495 N.W.2d 408…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Minnesota Law

“Under Minn. R. Civ. P. 41.02(a), the district court may dismiss an action or claim for failure to prosecute or to comply with these rules or any order of the court.” (See In re The Bette R. Peterson Revocable Tr., No. A22-0430, at *3 (Minn. Ct. App. Sep. 19, 2022).)

Missouri

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Missouri Law

“The standard of review for granting a motion to dismiss under the doctrine of forum non conveniens is abuse of discretion.” (See Skewes v. Masterchem Industries, Inc. (2005) 164 S.W.3d 92…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Missouri Law

“Rule 67.02 authorizes a defendant to move for dismissal of the civil action against him on account of failure on the part of plaintiff to prosecute the action.” (See Knight v. Kitchen (1987) 733 S.W.2d 864…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Missouri Law

“We will not sustain a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim unless it appears that the pleader can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” (See Landmark Bank v. General Grocer (1984) 680 S.W.2d 949…)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Missouri Law

“A defendant has the initial burden of raising lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 55.27.” (See Pohlmann v. Bil-Jax (1997) Inc., 954 S.W.2d 371

North Carolina

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under North Carolina Law

"In reviewing a dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim, the appellate court must determine whether the complaint alleges the substantive elements of a legally recognized claim and whether it gives sufficient notice of the events which produced the claim to enable the adverse party to prepare for trial." (See Formyduval v. Britt (2006) 630 S.E.2d 192, 196; Brandis v. Lightmotive Fatman (1994) 115 N.C.App. 59 …)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under North Carolina Law

“According to N.C. Gen.Stat. sub. sec. 1-75.4(1)(d), [a] court of this State ... has jurisdiction over a person [i]n any action, whether the claim arises within or without this State, in which a claim is asserted against a party who [i]s engaged in substantial activity within this State, whether such activity is wholly interstate, intrastate, or otherwise." (See Brown v. Meter (2009) 681 S.E.2d 382…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under North Carolina Law

It is also well settled that “the United States Supreme Court has stressed that once the first prong of purposeful minimum contacts is satisfied, the defendant will bear a heavy burden in escaping the exercise of jurisdiction based on other factors.” (See Peters v. Norwalk Furniture Corp., No. COA09-1135, at *14 (N.C. Ct. App. Sep. 1, 2010).)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under North Carolina Law

It is well settled that “under Rule 41(b), a claim may be dismissed for one of three reasons: failure to comply with the rules, failure to comply with a court order, or failure to prosecute. Where failure to prosecute is alleged, a trial court may enter sanctions only where the plaintiff or his attorney manifest[s] an intent to thwart the progress of [the] action or engage[s] in some delaying tactic." (See Spencer v. Albemarle Hosp (2003) 156 N.C. App. 675 …)

North Dakota

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under North Dakota Law

"Analysis of a district court's ruling regarding personal jurisdiction is a question of law, which we consider under the de novo standard of review.” (See Franciere v. City of Mandan (2020) 945 N.W.2d 251…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under North Dakota Law

“Rule 41(b), N.D.R.Civ.P. provides: for failure of the plaintiff to prosecute . . . a defendant may move for dismissal of an action or of any claim against him." (See Unemployment Compensation Div. v. Bjornsrud, (1977) 261 N.W.2d 396…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under North Dakota Law

“Rule 12(b)(6) of the North Dakota Rules of Civil Procedure provides that a party may move to dismiss a complaint on the ground that such a complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.” (See Limberg v. Sanford Med. Ctr. Fargo (2016) 881 N.W.2d 658…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under North Dakota Law

“A decision on a motion to dismiss because of an inconvenient forum is discretionary with the court and largely focuses on inconvenience to the parties.” (See Williams v. Williams (2018) 905 N.W.2d 900…)

New Jersey

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute or Discovery Delinquency under New Jersey Law

Rule 1:13–7(a) “is an administrative rule designed to clear the docket of cases that cannot, for various reasons, be prosecuted to completion. Dismissals under the rule are without prejudice. Accordingly, the right to reinstatement is…”

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim under New Jersey Law

"Because R. 4:6-2(e) requires that the pleading be generously examined and that all matters outside the pleadings be excluded, the motion is granted only in rare instances.”

Motion to Dismiss for Forum Non Conveniens under New Jersey Law

“In determining whether a plaintiff's forum is demonstrably inappropriate, courts may consider both private and public interest factors…”

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under New Jersey Law

“The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be raised by motion within ninety days of the filing of an answer, Rule 4:6-2(b) and Rule 4:6-3, and if a defendant fails to do so, the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is indeed waived…”

New Mexico

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under New Mexico Law

“The proper procedural mechanism for challenging a court's exercise of personal jurisdiction over a party is through a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 1-012(B)(2).” (Doe v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Boise (1996) 121 N.M. 738…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under New Mexico Law

“Application of forum non conveniens presupposes the availability of another forum in which all parties are amenable to process.” (Marchman v. NCNB Texas National Bank (1995) 120 N.M. 74…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under New Mexico Law

“A motion to dismiss on the pleadings ... is similar to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted [.]” (Orion Technical Res., LLC v. Los Alamos Nat'l Sec., LLC (2012) 287 P.3d 967…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under New Mexico Law

“Rule 41(e)(1) provides that where it appears that a plaintiff in a civil proceeding has ‘failed to take any action to bring such action or proceeding to its final determination for a period of at least three years after the filing of said action or proceeding ... any party to such action or proceeding may have the same dismissed with prejudice to the prosecution.’” (Jones v. Montgomery Ward Co., Inc. (1985) 103 N.M. 45…)

Nevada

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Nevada Law

“When a party challenges personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff typically has the burden of producing evidence that establishes a prima facie showing of jurisdiction.” (Consipio Holding, BV v. Carlberg (2012) 282 P.3d 751, 754 citing Trump v. District Court (1993) 109 Nev. 687…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Nevada Law

“Nothing in NRS 13.050(2)(c) requires the district court to impose conditions upon dismissal to ensure that a plaintiff can refile in any, let alone all, adequate alternative fora. Further, [reviewing courts] have held that ‘[a] district court has discretion to impose conditions on a forum non conveniens dismissal to ensure that the case may be heard in an alternative forum,’ [reviewing courts] have never held that a district court is required to ensure that a plaintiff's case may be heard in all adequate alternative fora.” (Allstate Fire & Cas. Ins. Co. v. LSP Prods. Grp., No. 77653, at *3 [Nev. May 29, 2020] citing Provincial Gov't of Marinduque v. Placer Dome, Inc. (2015) 131 Nev. 296…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Nevada Law

“Under NRCP 12(b)(5)'s failure-to-state-a-claim dismissal standard, ‘[a] complaint should not be dismissed unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff could prove no set of facts that would entitle him or her to relief.’” (Holcomb Condo. Homeowners' Ass'n, Inc. v. Stewart Venture, LLC (2013) 300 P.3d 124, 128 citing Cohen v. Mirage Resorts, Inc. (2013) 119 Nev. 1, 22, 62 P.3d 720…)

Motion Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Nevada Law

“Under NRCP 41(e), ‘[a]ny action heretofore or hereafter commenced shall be dismissed by the court in which the same shall have been commenced ... unless such action is brought to trial within 5 years after the plaintiff has filed the action.’” (Saticoy Bay LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (2017) 388 P.3d 226 …)

New York

Motion to Dismiss, Generally under New York Law

“A party may move for judgment dismissing one or more causes of action” on the ground that “a defense is founded upon documentary evidence.” (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 3211(a)(1).)

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Prosecute under New York Law

A court shall dismiss an action for neglect to prosecute pursuant to Section 3216 of Civil Practice Law and Rules provided that the statutory preconditions to dismissal are met.

Motion to Dismiss for Forum Conveniens under New York Law

In determining a forum non conveniens claim, New York courts consider the balance of the following facts: (1) The burden on the New York courts; (2) The potential hardship to the defendant…

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under New York Law

The plaintiff must adduce evidence demonstrating there is a basis for asserting jurisdiction over the defendant; mere conclusory allegations in the complaint that defendant had the requisite contacts in New York cannot be considered...

Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Join under New York Law

The court may dismiss one or more causes of action if it determines that it “should not proceed in the absence of a person who should be a party.” (Civ. Prac. Law & Rules, § 3211(a)(10).)

Motion to Dismiss under CPLR 3211(a)(7) under New York Law

A motion to dismiss pursuant to Section 3211(a)(7) of Civil Practice Law and Rules “may be used by a defendant to test the facial sufficiency of a pleading in two different ways. On the one hand, the motion may be used to dispose of an action in which the plaintiff has not stated a claim cognizable at law. On the other hand…”

Motion for Partial Dismissal under New York Law

The defending party may choose to file a partial motion to dismiss when it cannot show cause for dismissing the entire complaint. A partial motion to dismiss is subject to the same rules and authority as…

Ohio

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Ohio Law

“In response to a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff has the burden to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. [...] A trial court's decision whether to exercise personal jurisdiction over a party is a question of law.” (State v. Grand Tobacco (2007) 171 Ohio App. 3d 551…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Ohio Law

“The purpose of the notice requirement of Civ.R. 41(B)(1) is to ‘provide the party in default an opportunity to explain the default or to correct it, or to explain why the case should not be dismissed with prejudice.’” (Logsdon v. Nichols (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 124…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Ohio Law

“In resolving a Civ.R. 12(B)(6) motion to dismiss, the trial court may consider only the statements and facts contained in the pleadings and may not consider or rely on evidence outside the complaint.” (Powell v. Vorys, Sater, Seymour Pease (1998) 131 Ohio App. 3d 681, 684 citing Estate of Sherman v. Millhon (1995) 104 Ohio App.3d 614…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Ohio Law

“While a movant who has filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens is not required to present documentary evidence in support of the motion, the movant does have the burden of producing evidence sufficient for the court to balance the interests of the parties.” (Salabaschew v. TRW, Inc. (1995) 100 Ohio App. 3d 503, 507 citing Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno (1981) 454 U.S. 235…)

Oklahoma

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Oklahoma Law

“A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted may not be sustained unless it appears without doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the claim entitling relief.” (See Brown v. Founders Bank and Trust Co. (1995) 890 P.2d 855…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Oklahoma Law

Forum non conveniens is a common law doctrine authorizing a trial court to refuse to hear an action that would more appropriately be heard in another location.” (See Gulf Oil Company v. Woodson (1972) OK 164, ¶ 17, 505 P.2d 484, 488; Shepherd v. Kawasaki USA (2010) 239 P.3d 965…)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Oklahoma Law

“A state court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant only so long as there exist ‘minimum contacts’ between the defendant and the forum State.” (See Basham v. Hendee (1980) 614 P.2d 87…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Oklahoma Law

It is well settled that “satisfying the burden of diligent prosecution is not based merely upon satisfying a procedure; but diligence is also based, in part, upon a good-faith presentation of the material facts to the trial court.” (See State ex Rel. Oklahoma Corp. v. McPherson (2010) 232 P.3d 458…)

Oregon

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Oregon Law

“In reviewing the denial of a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we assume the truth of all well-pleaded allegations.” (See Kotera v. Daioh Intl. U.S.A. Corp. (2002) 179 Or. App. 253…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Oregon Law

“Whether a complaint was properly dismissed for failure to state a claim is a question of law; we treat the facts alleged in the complaint as true.” (See Praegitzer Industries v. Rollins Burdick Hunter (1994) 129 Or. App. 628…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Oregon Law

“Under ORCP 54 B(1), a defendant may move for a judgment of dismissal of an action [f]or failure of the plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with any order of the court.” (See Johnson v. Eugene Emergency Physicians, P.C. (1999) 159 Or. App. 167…)

Pennsylvania

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Pennsylvania Law

“[W]here a delay in prosecuting a case is attributable to the defendant as well as the plaintiff, the defendant has waived his or her right to a judgment of non pros.” (Tri-State Asphalt v. Dept. of Transp (2005) 875 A.2d 1199, n.9 citing 7 Standard Pennsylvania Practice 2d § 39:98 [2003].)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Pennsylvania Law

“Thus, there are two requirements necessary for Pennsylvania courts to exercise specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant: first, jurisdiction must be authorized by the Pennsylvania Long-Arm Statute; and second, the exercise of jurisdiction must comport with constitutional principles of due process.” (Schiavone v. Aveta, 2012 Pa. Super. 68, 4 [Pa. Super. Ct. 2012] citing Kenneth H. Oakes Ltd. v. Josephson (1989) 568 A.2d 215…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Pennsylvania Law

“‘In Pennsylvania, the doctrine of forum non conveniens, which originated in Common Law, has been codified by statute: Inconvenient forum.-When a tribunal finds that in the interest of substantial justice the matter should be heard in another forum, the tribunal may stay or dismiss the matter in whole or in part on any conditions that may be just.’” (Lyndes v. Penn Cent. Corp. (2021) 2021 Pa. Super. 82, 10-11 citing 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 5322(e); Hovatter v. CSX Transportation , Inc. (2018) 193 A.3d 420…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Pennsylvania Law

[A] complaint must not only apprise the defendant of the claims being asserted, but it must also summarize the essential facts to support that claim. (Landau v. Western Pa. Nat'l Bank (1971) 282 A.2d 335…)

Rhode Island

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Rhode Island Law

“The doctrine of forum non conveniens allows a court to dismiss a case when a chosen forum — despite the existence of jurisdiction and venue — is so inconvenient that it would be unfair to the defendant to conduct its defense of the claim in that location.” (See Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert (1947) 330 U.S. 501…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Rhode Island Law

“The Rhode Island Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 41(b)(2) reads: [o]n Motion of the Defendant. On motion of the defendants the court may, in its discretion, dismiss any action for failure of the plaintiff to comply with these rules or any order of court or for lack of prosecution as provided in paragraph (1) of this subdivision.” (See Monteiro v. Town of Middletown, No. NC-2005-0261, at *7 (R.I. Super. July 20, 2011).)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Rhode Island Law

It is well settled that pursuant to Rules of Civil Procedure, rules 12(b)(6), 56 “Where in connection with a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim matters outside the complaint are to be considered, the motion is required to be treated as one for summary judgment.” (See Little v. Barnett Carter Co., Inc. (1978) 119 R.I. 686.)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Rhode Island Law

It is also well settled that in the absence of personal jurisdiction, this Court “is not authorized to enter summary judgment on behalf of [the Defendant]. Therefore, this Court will treat the motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss for want of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). (See Mitchell v. Burrillville Racing Ass'n (1996) 673 A.2d 446, 448 [treating a motion for summary judgment as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Super. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) where lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants rendered entry of summary judgment in regard to those defendants inappropriate]; Pullar v. Cappelli, C.A. No. NC 2011-0238, at *1 (R.I. Super. May 29, 2015).)

Texas

Motion to Dismiss as Moot under Texas Law

“A case becomes moot if, since the time of filing, there has ceased to exist a justiciable controversy between the parties—that is, if the issues presented are no longer ‘live,’ or if the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.”

Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to the Texas Citizens Participation Act under Texas Law

The Texas Citizens Participation Act (TCPA) protects citizens who petition or speak on matters of public concern from retaliatory lawsuits that seek to intimidate or silence them. (Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code §§ 27.001 –.011.) The protection consists of a special motion for…

Motion to Dismiss, Generally under Texas Law

Although Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) provides for a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not contain any analogous provision. Under the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, the proper way for a defendant to urge that a plaintiff has failed to plead a cause of action is by special exception…

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Texas Law

A defendant's motion may negate jurisdiction on a factual basis by presenting evidence to disprove the plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations. (Id.) A defendant's motion may negate jurisdiction on a legal basis by…

Vermont

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Vermont Law

“A Vermont court which has jurisdiction may decline to exercise it if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” (See In re A.W. (2014) 94 A.3d 1161…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Vermont Law

“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…)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Vermont Law

“The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction must be raised before or at the time of pleading, and failure to raise the defense in the answer or by motion filed before or simultaneously with the answer constitutes a waiver of the defense.” (See Yanmar Am. Corp. v. Crean Equip. Co., (2012) 48 A.3d 602…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Vermont Law

It is well settled that “V.R.C.P. 41(b)(3) provides that unless the court in its order specifies otherwise, a dismissal under V.R.C.P. 41(b) (2) based on a failure of a plaintiff to prosecute or to comply with the rules or any order of court, shall operate as an adjudication upon the merits.” (See Cody v. Estate of Cody (1976) 134 Vt. 113…)

Washington

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Washington Law

It is well settled that under the doctrine of forum non conveniens “courts have discretionary power to [decline] jurisdiction where, in the court's view, the difficulties of litigation militate for the dismissal of the action subject to a stipulation that the defendant submit to jurisdiction in a more convenient forum.” (See Myers v. Boeing Company (1990) 115 Wn. 2d 123…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Washington Law

“CR 41(b) (1) provides for mandatory dismissal, where a plaintiff neglects to note the action for trial or hearing within 1 year after any issue of law or fact has been joined.” (See Lind v. Frick (1976) 15 Wn. App. 614 …)

Wisconsin

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to Prosecute under Wisconsin Law

Specifically, “a circuit court has the inherent power to dismiss actions pending before it if they are not being prosecuted in a reasonably timely manner.” (See Schmidt v. Dragisic, Appeal No. 2016AP272, at *9 (Wis. Ct. App. July 25, 2017).)

Motion to Dismiss For Lack of Personal Jurisdiction under Wisconsin Law

“A corporation may be subject to personal jurisdiction in a forum state under a theory of specific jurisdiction if it has certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” (See Segregated Account of Ambac Assurance Corp. v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. (2017) 376 Wis. 2d 528…)

Motion to Dismiss For Forum Non Conveniens under Wisconsin Law

It is well settled that “Sec. 262.19, Stats., based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, provides defendants with a device by which they can protect against the exercise of personal jurisdiction when there is serious question whether due process will be denied by subjecting a defendant to the jurisdiction of this state.” (See Dillon v. Dillon (1970) 46 Wis. 2d 659…)

Motion to Dismiss For Failure to State a Claim under Wisconsin Law

“Conversion of a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment is not required under Wis. Stat. subsection 802.06(2)(b).” (See CTI of Northeast Wisconsin, LLC v. Herrell (2002) 259 Wis. 2d 756…)

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope