Opinion ID: 1921994
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Matters Outside Complaint

Text: The Plaintiffs argue that the Court of Chancery committed legal error because it relied on matters outside of the Complaint in granting all of the defendants' motions to dismiss. The complaint generally defines the universe of facts that the trial court may consider in ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. [23] When the trial court considers matters outside of the complaint, a motion to dismiss is usually converted into a motion for summary judgment and the parties are permitted to expand the record. [24] Chancery Rule 12(b) provides: If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, 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, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56. Accordingly, if a party presents documents in support of its Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss and the trial court considers the documents, it generally must treat the motion as one for summary judgment. [25] Before a motion for summary judgment is ripe for decision, the non-movant normally should have an opportunity for some discovery. [26] Nevertheless, in some instances and for carefully limited purposes, it may be proper for a trial court to decide a motion to dismiss by considering documents referred to in a complaint. [27] The trial court may also take judicial notice of matters that are not subject to reasonable dispute. [28] In this case, the Defendant directors submit that the Court of Chancery's decision properly rested on: the insufficiency of the allegations in the Complaint; the entire contents of the Consent Solicitation alleged in the Complaint to be materially misleading; and facts subject to judicial notice. We have concluded that the Court of Chancery properly applied this Court's prior motion to dismiss precedents in considering matters outside of the Complaint. [29]