Opinion ID: 166321
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: summary judgment conversion

Text: 42 Next, Price claims that the district court improperly converted Defendants' motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) to motions for summary judgment under Rule 56 without the necessary notice to Price. Price is correct as a matter of law that when a district court relies on material from outside the pleadings, the court converts the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Lamb v. Rizzo, 391 F.3d 1133, 1136 (10th Cir.2004). And when such a conversion occurs, the district court must provide the parties with notice so that all factual allegations may be met with countervailing evidence. Burnham v. Humphrey Hospitality Reit Trust, Inc., 403 F.3d 709, 713 (10th Cir.2005). 43 However, here, it seems clear the district court did not convert Defendants' motions to one for summary judgment. Although Price is correct that the parties were conducting discovery at the time of the court's decision, the district court expressly indicated that [t]he court has before it for consideration plaintiff's complaint, the defendant's motions, and plaintiff's responses. Therefore, Price's complaints about lack of notice of such conversion are without merit.