Opinion ID: 201444
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Conversion of motion to dismiss to summary judgment

Text: 12 The Wampanoag Tribe claims that the district court erred in considering the State's affirmative defense — that the Settlement Act bars the Tribe's land claims — without converting the motion to dismiss into one for summary judgment. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b) provides that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted shall be converted into a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment whenever matters outside the pleading are presented to and relied on by the district court. The Tribe's complaint did not mention the Settlement Act, and the State first presented the Settlement Act to the district court in a brief supporting the State's motion to dismiss. The Wampanoags therefore assign error, claiming that the court's failure to convert the motion into one for summary judgment prevented them from introducing evidence intended to negate the affirmative defense. We find this challenge without merit for the following reasons. 13 In general, courts have interpreted the Rule 12(b) conversion provision to mean that courts may consider not only the complaint but also matters fairly incorporated within it and matters susceptible to judicial notice without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. In re Colonial Mortgage Bankers Corp., 324 F.3d 12, 15 (1st Cir.2003). Indeed, we have specifically noted that a court may look to matters of public record in deciding a Rule (12)(b)(6) motion without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. Boateng v. InterAmerican Univ., Inc., 210 F.3d 56, 60 (1st Cir.2000); see also Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3-4 (1st Cir.1993). Such public records clearly include federal statutes, such as the Settlement Act at issue here. See Pani v. Empire Blue Cross Blue Shield, 152 F.3d 67, 75 (2d Cir.1998) (It is well established that a district court may rely on matters of public record in deciding a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), including case law and statutes.). 14 We have also held that, [i]n an appropriate case, an affirmative defense may be adjudicated on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Colonial Mortgage, 324 F.3d at 16. An appropriate case is one in which two conditions are met. First, the facts that establish the defense must be definitively ascertainable from the allegations of the complaint... matters of public record, and other matters of which the court may take judicial notice. Id.; Blackstone Realty L.L.C. v. FDIC, 244 F.3d 193, 197 (1st Cir.2001). As we discussed above, the Settlement Act is a public record which the court may appropriately consider. Second, the facts so gleaned must conclusively establish the affirmative defense. Colonial Mortgage, 324 F.3d at 16; see also Blackstone Realty L.L.C., 244 F.3d at 197; 5B Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1357, at 708-32 (3d ed.2004) (citing numerous cases considering affirmative defenses on motions to dismiss). Thus, we now proceed to consider de novo whether, based on the facts pled, the Settlement Act bars the Wampanoags' claims.