Opinion ID: 819198
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Motions to Dismiss Should Have Been Con-

Text: verted into Motions for Summary Judgment Pursu- ant to Rule 12(d) We first address the proper posture of this case. Rule 12(d) provides: If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion. Appellants submitted evidence before the district court in response to the Rule 12(b)(6) motions, including affidavits attesting that J&D continued to pay union wages and deduct union dues even after the March 2007 expiration date. Such evidence is not part of the pleadings, as it is not “referred to in the plaintiff[s’] complaint . . . .” 188 LLC v. Trinity Indus. Inc., 300 F.3d 730, 735 (7th Cir. 6 No. 09-3706 2002). Yet the district court considered this evidence when ruling on J&D’s motion to dismiss without converting the motions into motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d), and it applied the Rule 12(b)(6) standard rather than the summary judgment standard. This was error, and the district court should have adhered to Rule 12(d). See Gen. Elec. Cap. Corp. v. Lease Resolution Corp., 128 F.3d 1074, 1080 (7th Cir. 1997). Nonetheless, in this case that is not cause for reversal or remand. Appellants were the ones who first sub- mitted evidence outside the pleadings (J&D did initially submit a copy of the CBA, but that was the cornerstone of Appellants’ complaint and may be considered part of the pleadings, see 188 LLC, 300 F.3d at 735). J&D and Local 705 discuss this confused pro- cedural posture in their briefs, and Appellants have not suggested that they would have been, or would be, prejudiced by consideration of these motions as motions for summary judgment. We therefore treat this appeal as if the motions had been converted into motions for summary judgment, because we too rely on evidence submitted outside the pleadings, and because we do not reach the adequacy-of-pleading issue for reasons discussed below. Cf. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch. Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 684-85 (7th Cir. 1994) (district court decision to treat motion to dismiss as motion for summary judgment is not reversible error if there is no prejudice). No. 09-3706 7