Opinion ID: 2599590
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Materials Considered by the District Court

Text: On the procedural issue, Goldbarth asserts that the district court improperly considered material extraneous to his petition when ruling on defendants' K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) motion. He argues that: (1) the district court considered defendants' submissions but refused to consider additional materials he submitted, (2) the K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) motion should have been viewed as one for summary judgment, and (3) he should have been given the opportunity to present his evidence. Goldbarth's argument lacks merit. K.S.A. 60-212(b) says if matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion [to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted] shall be treated as one for summary judgment. (Emphasis added.) A review of the transcript and the district court's thoughtful comprehensive decision reveals that the parties placed additional materials before the district court; however, the court ultimately decided not to consider these materials. The district court followed 60-212(b)(6) in resolving the motions. The district judge addressed the 60-212(b)(6) procedural issue both during the hearing and in his memorandum decision. When the hearing began, the judge said that he had reviewed all materials submitted in the case. He requested that the parties comment on the procedural posture of the case. He also asked whether they wished to submit the case on summary judgment rather than under 60-212(b)(6). The defendants presented their arguments first. Defendant Bowman introduced, under seal, the complaints of the two female students. When it came time for Goldbarth to present his arguments, his counsel sought the introduction of additional materials in the form of his response to the grievances filed against him. The defendants objected. The district judge refused to allow Goldbarth's exhibits. The judge determined that he would only consider the petition and its attachments. The district court memorandum decision said: Counsel for plaintiff, during oral argument, argued defendants had placed the case in posture for summary judgment pursuant to K.S.A. 60-212(b)(6) and 60-212(c).... The Court interrupted the argument, read case authority, the statutes and arguments presented and returned to the Court with a ruling, pursuant to K.S.A. 60-212(c), excluding all such extraneous matters not contained within plaintiff s petition unless the parties agreed to submit all the same and submit the case in the posture of a summary judgment motion. The offer of the Court was refused. The odd procedural history in that regard is here noted to hopefully make sense of comments and rulings of the Court in properly ruling on this Motion to Dismiss in light of obvious knowledge by all parties, and the Court in some instances, of other and extraneous materials not contained within the governing pleading, plaintiff's petition. The district judge's knowledge of facts other than those contained in the pleadings is not grounds for a reversal here. He ultimately decided he would not consider documents outside the petition. We find no error in the district court's procedural ruling.