Opinion ID: 2625926
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: trial court's dismissal

Text: ¶ 13 The trial court's dismissal in this case was improper. As we note above, the trial court apparently premised its dismissal on rule 12(b)(6) of the Utah Rules of Civil Procedure. [W]hen `determining whether a trial court properly dismissed an action under rule 12(b)(6), we assume that the factual allegations in the complaint are true and we draw all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.' Valley Colour, Inc. v. Beuchert Builders, Inc., 944 P.2d 361, 362 (Utah 1997) (internal citation omitted). Doing so, it is apparent that the dismissal in this case was not justified. ¶ 14 A rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is merely a recognition by a trial court that a plaintiff's claim for relief is formally deficient. Id. at 362. Cazares's case was improperly dismissed because her complaint was sufficient, alleging as it did that the challenged deeds were forgeries. The defendants below never argued that the complaint was inadequate. ¶ 15 Instead of reviewing the formal sufficiency of the claim for relief, id., the trial court in this case apparently applied the findings of fact from the evidentiary hearing to what was to be the ultimate issue at trial and concluded that Cazares could not prevail. However, the evidentiary hearing was for the limited purpose of determining the admissibility of evidence, not the trial of the case. Rather than viewing the factual allegations of the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, the trial court applied its own findings of fact from the evidentiary hearing to resolve any doubts about the evidence. One court discussing judicial findings of fact in pretrial evidentiary hearings has noted that although [t]he preliminary question ... may also coincide with an ultimate question of fact for the jury ... the trial judge is ruling on the admissibility of evidence, not [the ultimate outcome of the trial]. United States v. Enright, 579 F.2d 980, 985 (6th Cir.1978). In this case the trial court inappropriately relied on factual determinations from the evidentiary hearing, and we reverse.