Opinion ID: 2843011
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standard ofReview

Text: A trial court's ruling to dismiss a claim under CR 12(b)(6) is reviewed de novo. Kinney v. Cook, 159 Wn.2d 837, 842, 154 P.3d 206 (2007) (citing Tenore v. AT&T Wireless Servs., 136 Wn.2d 322, 329-30, 962 P.2d 104 (1998)). At this stage, we accept as true the allegations in a plaintiffs complaint and any reasonable inferences therein. Reidv. Pierce County, 136 Wn.2d 195,201, 961 P.2d 333 (1998) (citing Chambers-Castanes v. King County, 100 Wn.2d 275, 278, 669 P.2d 451 (1983); Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 89 Wn.2d 959, 961, 577 P.2d 580 (1978)). CR 12(b)(6) motions should be granted 'sparingly and with care' and 'only in the unusual case in which plaintiff includes allegations that show on the face of the complaint that there is some insuperable bar to relief.' Cutler v. Phillips Petrol. Co., 124 Wn.2d 749,755, 881 P.2d 216 (1994) (quoting Hoffer v. State, 110 Wn.2d 415,420, 755 P.2d 781 (1988)). Dismissal under CR 12(b)(6) is appropriate only if 'it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that no facts 4 JS., S.L., and L.C. v. Village Voice Media Holdings et al., No. 90510-0 exist that would justify recovery.' In re Parentage of C.M.F., 179 Wn.2d 411, 418,314 P.3d 1109 (2013) (quoting Cutler, 124 Wn.2d at 755).