Menu

District Of New Jersey Rewards Defendant’s Candor, Finds No Waiver In Successive Motion to Dismiss

Appellate & Trial Support   |   December 15, 2016
Download   
Share Page
Tips

Federal Rule 12(g)(2) generally prohibits a successive motion to dismiss based on grounds that were known at the time of the original motion. This rule was tested in VNB Realty, Inc. v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Assoc., No. 2:13-4743, 2015 WL 8490948 (D. N.J. Dec. 10, 2015). There, at the time defendant U.S. Bank filed a motion to dismiss, the Second Circuit was considering an issue of first impression that could have potentially provided an additional basis for dismissing the plaintiff’s complaint. Rather than fully briefing that argument in its motion, U.S. Bank informed the court of the situation and stated that it was expressly preserving the argument pending the Second Circuit’s decision.

After the Second Circuit ruled, U.S. Bank filed a second motion to dismiss. In response, the plaintiff argued that U.S. Bank had waived the argument by failing to brief the issue in its first motion.

The court disagreed. Citing an exception to the rule against successive motions that applied to motions under Rule 12(c), the court held that the substance of the motion to dismiss would be no different had it been filed as a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court also was persuaded by the efficiency of U.S. Bank’s approach, stating:

Here, accepting U.S. Bank's motion would promote judicial efficiency while resulting in little to no prejudice against VNB. First, U.S. Bank does not simply seek a ‘second bite at the apple’ by offering certain arguments in one motion to dismiss, losing, and then raising new arguments in a second motion to dismiss. Instead, U.S. Bank was upfront in explaining that it was preserving its argument . . . because another court was considering the issue as a matter of first impression.

Preservation Issues:

  • Successive motions to dismiss under Rule 12
  • Waiver
  • Preservation of defenses

Tips:

Although U.S. Bank’s strategy was successful, its approach was risky – particularly because the case under appellate consideration would not be binding authority in the District of New Jersey (which sits in the Third Circuit). In addition, if the Second Circuit’s decision had been adverse to U.S. Bank’s position, this approach could have backfired.

A safer course would have been to fully brief the argument, while also alerting the court to the pending case and allowing the court to defer its ruling, if it chose to do so. U.S. Bank also could have styled the second motion as, in the alternative, a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, in the event the court determined that the 12(b) motion had been waived (which was the practical result here, because the court decided the motion under the Rule 12(c) standard).

Overall, the waiver question in this case was ultimately low risk due to the availability of a 12(c) motion and potentially a motion for summary judgment. In riskier waiver situations, best practice would be the more conservative, yet equally candid, approach of fully briefing the argument in the first motion and informing the court of the pending case. In either situation, this case illustrates that candor and transparency with the court will often be rewarded.


©2018 Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, P.A. Carlton Fields practices law in California through Carlton Fields Jorden Burt, LLP. Carlton Fields publications should not be construed as legal advice on any specific facts or circumstances. The contents are intended for general information and educational purposes only, and should not be relied on as if it were advice about a particular fact situation. The distribution of this publication is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship with Carlton Fields. This publication may not be quoted or referred to in any other publication or proceeding without the prior written consent of the firm, to be given or withheld at our discretion. To request reprint permission for any of our publications, please use our Contact Us form via the link below. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the firm. This site may contain hypertext links to information created and maintained by other entities. Carlton Fields does not control or guarantee the accuracy or completeness of this outside information, nor is the inclusion of a link to be intended as an endorsement of those outside sites.

Subscribe to Publications

Disclaimer

The information on this website is presented as a service for our clients and Internet users and is not intended to be legal advice, nor should you consider it as such. Although we welcome your inquiries, please keep in mind that merely contacting us will not establish an attorney-client relationship between us. Consequently, you should not convey any confidential information to us until a formal attorney-client relationship has been established. Please remember that electronic correspondence on the internet is not secure and that you should not include sensitive or confidential information in messages. With that in mind, we look forward to hearing from you.