Opinion ID: 1736802
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: ops' affirmative defenses

Text: A political subdivision retains its sovereign immunity with respect to certain listed exceptions found in the PSTCA. See § 13-910. The exceptions set forth in § 13-910 are affirmative sovereign immunity defenses to claims brought pursuant to the PSTCA. Harris v. Omaha Housing Auth., 269 Neb. 981, 698 N.W.2d 58 (2005). If a political subdivision proves that a plaintiff's claim comes within an exception pursuant to § 13-910, then the claim fails based on sovereign immunity, and the political subdivision is not liable. Id. In its motion to dismiss, OPS alleged that it is entitled to immunity based upon three of the exceptions in § 13-910. We have not previously addressed the manner in which affirmative defenses are to be considered with respect to a rule 12(b)(6) motion. We agree with the prevailing view among federal courts that [a] complaint also is subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) when its allegations indicate the existence of an affirmative defense that will bar the award of any remedy; but for this to occur, the applicability of the defense has to be clearly indicated and must appear on the face of the pleading to be used as the basis for the motion. 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357 at 708-10 (3d ed.2004). In other words, a motion to dismiss a complaint may be granted where the plaintiff's own allegations show that a defense exists that legally defeats the claim for relief. Id. at 713. Within this analytical framework, we address each of the three affirmative defenses upon which OPS bases its claim of immunity.