Opinion ID: 1027813
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Broadway’s 12(b)(6) Motion

Text: Herman contends that the district court erroneously dismissed his claims as to Broadway upon its own motion. Herman points to the district court’s opinion, which states that “Defendant Broadway fail[ed] to file any motion at all.” J.A. 116. However, Broadway did file a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) on December 20, 2006. In its opinion, the district court apparently failed to recognize that Broadway had filed the motion. Because Broadway did, in fact, file a motion 2 Furthermore, Herman did actually receive licensure for the school. He alleges in his complaint only that the licensing was delayed and that “time was of the essence in the new school’s application.” J.A. 44. Even if he were able to show a cognizable property interest in the license, that interest was ultimately realized by him, and he fails to allege that he suffered any actual loss as a result of the delay. 15 to dismiss, and the motion was not raised sua sponte, there was no error of law in dismissing the claims against Broadway pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).