Opinion ID: 3012869
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Graphnet’s Remaining Claims in Its Motion to

Text: Dismiss We decline Worldcom’s invitation to instruct the district court to rule against Graphnet on the remainder of the issues raised in its motion to dismiss. It is the district court’s duty to decide the outstanding issues in the first instance. To the extent that Graphnet requests that we affirm the district court’s dismissal of this action with prejudice on alternative grounds, we see nothing in the record that would give us a basis for doing so. See Fairview Township v. EPA, 773 F.2d 517, 525 n.15 (3d Cir. 1985) (this court may affirm the district court on any basis finding support in the record). Graphnet does not dispute that Worldcom has adequately pleaded its claims regarding the first contract. It does argue, however, that the claims regarding the second contract were not adequately pleaded. We leave it to the district court to decide this issue. Even if the district court does conclude that the claims were not adequately pleaded, Worldcom may still be able to amend its complaint to adequately plead the claims. Graphnet’s argument in district court for why these claims should be dismissed with prejudice is without merit. Graphnet claimed in district court that Worldcom has failed to plead the claims regarding this contract three times and has therefore had “three bites at the apple” and should not be given another.3 Graphnet does not correctly represent the record. Worldcom has unsuccessfully pleaded claims regarding the second agreement only once. The district court in Virginia dismissed the claim without prejudice. Worldcom thereafter amended its complaint. The action was then transferred to New Jersey. The district court in New Jersey has never ruled on the issue. 3. The fact that a complainant has had “three bites at the apple” is not itself a justification for dismissing a complaint with prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a); see also Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1053 (9th Cir. 2003) (Reinhardt, J., concurring separately) (“the undeservedly common ‘three bites at the apple’ cliche . . . too often provide[s] a substitute for reasoned analysis”). 11 Graphnet’s motion to dismiss also raised two affirmative defenses. Graphnet asserted that Worldcom’s action was barred both by an earlier settlement agreement and by the applicable statute of limitations. The facts necessary to establish an affirmative defense must generally come from matters outside of the complaint. Thus, with some exceptions, affirmative defenses should be raised in responsive pleadings, not in pre-answer motions brought under Rule 12(b). See Robinson v. Johnson, 313 F.3d 128, 135 (3rd Cir. 2003) (limitations defense may be raised on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) “only if the time alleged in the statement of a claim shows that the cause of action has not been brought within the statute of limitations”) (emphasis added) (internal citations and quotations omitted); Nemitz v. Norfolk & W. R. Co., 287 F. Supp. 221, 231 (N.D. Ohio), aff ’d by 404 U.S. 37 (1971) (defense of accord and satisfaction because of settlement agreement may not be raised in a motion to dismiss). Neither of these affirmative defenses can be resolved without further development of the record.