Sanas.AI Inc. v. Krisp Technologies, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the Northern District of California denied Krisp Technologies, Inc.’s successive Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss claims in Sanas.AI Inc.’s first amended complaint. The court held that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) bars a party from bringing a later Rule 12 motion raising an objection available but omitted from an earlier motion, while noting that the failure-to-state-a-claim defense may be raised under Rule 12(c) or at trial.

Holdings

1. A party that has made a Rule 12 motion may not make another Rule 12 motion raising a defense or objection that was available but omitted from the earlier motion. Accordingly, a defendant may not file a successive pre-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motion raising a failure-to-state-a-claim defense against the same complaint.
2. Judicial-economy considerations do not permit the court to decide the merits of an otherwise impermissible successive Rule 12(b)(6) motion.

Questions Presented

1. Whether a defendant may file a successive pre-answer Rule 12(b)(6) motion raising a defense that was available but omitted from an earlier Rule 12 motion concerning the same complaint.
2. Whether judicial-economy considerations permit the court to decide an otherwise impermissible successive Rule 12(b)(6) motion on the merits.

Disposition

denied