Opinion ID: 449639
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Potential for Reviewing the District Court Decision as a Summary Judgment

Text: 12 The normal course of action when materials outside the complaint are considered is for a nominal motion to dismiss to be treated as a motion for summary judgment. As Rule 12(b) states, If, on a [Rule 12(b)(6) motion], matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56. See also Carter v. Stanton, 405 U.S. 669, 92 S.Ct. 1232, 31 L.Ed.2d 569 (1972) (per curiam ); Shehadeh v. Chesapeake & Potomac Tel. Co. of Md., 595 F.2d 711, 719 n. 41 (D.C.Cir.1978); Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Thomas, 521 F.2d 941, 949 (D.C.Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 910, 96 S.Ct. 1507, 47 L.Ed.2d 761 (1976). 13 There are constraints on a court's ability to thus transform a motion to dismiss, however. Specifically, Rule 12(b) provides further that, if a motion to dismiss is converted to a motion for summary judgment, all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all materials made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. See also Gordon v. Nat'l Youth Work Alliance, 675 F.2d 356, 360 (D.C.Cir.1982). Under Rule 56 such materials include affidavits and documentary evidence that would show that a genuine issue of material fact existed. Rule 56 contains a similar but more explicit constraint: The motion [for summary judgment] shall be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing [on the motion]. Rule 56(c). 14 Thus a reviewing court should not automatically treat a dismissal where external materials were not excluded as a summary judgment, although such treatment may be the most common result of such a situation. Rather, the reviewing court must assure itself that summary judgment treatment would be fair to both parties in that the procedural requirements of the applicable rules were observed. 15 Here, treatment of the dismissal as a summary judgment would not be appropriate. The motion was served on TCI on December 23, 1983, and argument was heard on December 27, 1983--a mere four days later. This scheduling complies with neither the explicit 10-day requirement of Rule 56(c) nor the reasonable-period-for-response requirement of Rule 12(b). (The four-day period, as TCI notes in its brief, spanned a weekend and included Christmas and Christmas Eve.) Consequently, the motion cannot properly be recast as a motion for summary judgment, and the District Court's decision must stand or fall as a pure Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal. 16