Summary
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that a district court may not grant a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion solely because the opposing party failed to respond. The court vacated the dismissal of the plaintiffs’ claims and remanded for the district court to determine whether the complaint plausibly stated claims for relief. The court denied as moot the appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal and alternative request for summary affirmance.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether a district court may grant a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) motion solely because the opposing party failed to file a timely response.
- Whether Rule 12(b)(6) authorizes default relief or a procedural default dismissal for failure to respond to the motion.
- Whether plaintiffs preserved for appeal the argument that the district court was required to independently determine whether the complaint stated a plausible claim.
Holdings
- A district court may not grant a Rule 12(b)(6) motion solely because the opposing party failed to respond; the court must determine whether the complaint itself fails to state a plausible claim for relief.
- Rule 12(b)(6) does not authorize default relief or an automatic procedural-default dismissal based on a party's failure to respond to the motion.
- The plaintiffs preserved the error by timely appealing the judgment; they were not required to raise the argument in a post-judgment motion before appealing.
Key quotations
“This textual formulation does not admit of granting a motion to dismiss on the basis that a party failed to respond to it — i.e., the Rule does not provide for default relief for a failure to respond.” (7)
“Rule 12(b)(6) simply does not provide for any such default relief.” (8)
“the district court nevertheless ha[d] an obligation to review the motions to ensure that dismissal [was] proper” (8)
“may not automatically treat a failure to respond to a 12(b)(6) motion as a procedural default” (8)
Factual background
Nine professional female models alleged that Acuarius Night Club misappropriated images from their social-media pages and used them in advertisements promoting the club and its events without their knowledge, consent, or compensation. They alleged that the advertisements falsely suggested that they were club employees, endorsed the club, or were affiliated with it. The complaint asserted two Lanham Act claims and seven state-law claims, including misappropriation of likeness.
Procedural history
Plaintiffs filed claims under the Lanham Act and South Carolina law alleging that Acuarius misappropriated their images for advertising. The district court entered a text order granting the Rule 12(b)(6) motion as unopposed, dismissed eight counts with prejudice and one state-law count without prejudice, and entered judgment. The court denied plaintiffs' subsequent Rule 60(b)(1), Rule 59(e), and Rule 60(b)(6) relief. The Fourth Circuit vacated the judgment and remanded, and denied as moot Acuarius's motion to dismiss the appeal and alternative request for summary affirmance.
Remand instructions
The district court must reconsider the Rule 12(b)(6) motion by independently determining whether the complaint, accepting its factual allegations as true, states plausible claims for relief. The court must not dismiss solely because the motion was unopposed. The court's post-judgment orders were not addressed because of the vacatur and remand.