Opinion ID: 653208
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conversion into Summary Judgment

Text: 7 CLE objects to the conversion of the motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion. CLE argues that matters outside the pleadings were not involved, and that it did not receive adequate notice and opportunity to present material for a summary judgment decision. Additionally, CLE argues that the district court impermissibly made factual findings in contravention of the proper standard for deciding summary judgment motions. 8 A motion under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is converted into one for summary judgment under Rule 56 when matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b). These matters can be depositions, answers to interrogatories, affidavits, or any other written or oral evidence in support or in opposition to the pleading. 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure Sec. 1366 (1990). Either the pleader or moving party can trigger the conversion. Id. 9 The district court converted Fulbright's motion because CLE presented matters outside the pleadings by attaching several exhibits to its complaint. CLE argued in district court that the Fulbright letters contained self-serving hearsay which CLE did not want to be bound to just because it attached the letters to the complaint. The district court, however, relied upon the letters in its decision and at the hearing stated: All of this quibbling about whether these exhibits have to be excised from the allegations of the complaint, I'm not going to get involved in it, I'm going to convert it to a Rule 56 determination. (Hr'g on Dec. 16, 1991 at 9.) We believe the court properly converted the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment since matters outside the pleadings were relied upon by the court. See Grove v. Mead Sch. Dist., 753 F.2d 1528, 1533 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 826 (1985); Townsend v. Columbia Operations, 667 F.2d 844, 849 (9th Cir.1982). 10 A 12(b)(6) conversion must also give the nonmoving party adequate notice and opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b); Portland Retail Druggists Ass'n v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, 662 F.2d 641, 645 (9th Cir.1981). Contrary to CLE's argument, it did have adequate notice that the motion was pending and a reasonable opportunity to respond. [N]otice is adequate if the party against whom judgment is entered is 'fairly apprised' that the court will look beyond the pleadings. Grove, 753 F.2d at 1532. At the hearing on December 16, 1991, CLE had notice when the judge stated the motion would be converted. Then two days later, CLE again had notice when the court issued the order converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. 11 We further reject CLE's claim that it did not have an adequate opportunity to present additional factual evidence. The court gave it such an opportunity in its December 18 order when it gave CLE five days to present evidence in opposition to the summary judgment motion. CLE's counsel indicated that if he had known the motion would be treated as one for summary judgment, he would have submitted additional evidence. Nevertheless, when given the opportunity by the court, CLE submitted a legal memorandum and refused to submit anything else in opposition to the summary judgment motion. While five days is not an abundance of time, CLE had its chance, and it never asked for more time. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f). See also Condon v. Local 2944, United Steelworkers, 683 F.2d 590, 593 (1st Cir.1982) (three weeks before ruling on motion sufficient time); Townsend, 667 F.2d at 850 (three weeks sufficient when party never asked for more). The purpose of the requirement that a party have an opportunity to respond is to allow time for the development of factual matters relevant to a summary judgment resolution. See Portland Retail, 662 F.2d at 645. But full discovery is not required and may not be necessary in order to resolve a summary judgment motion. Timberlane Lumber Co. v. Bank of Am., 549 F.2d 597, 602 (9th Cir.1976). This case is not complex, and based upon the pleadings and attached letters, additional discovery would have been fruitless. See Admiralty Fund v. City Nat'l Bank, 677 F.2d 1315, 1317 (9th Cir.1982).