Opinion ID: 3036297
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The meritoriousness of the claim or

Text: defense. The District Court found that Briscoe’s claims “were based in some merit” because they “had successfully cleared the summary judgment hurdle and were in posture to proceed to trial.” We agree with the District Court’s conclusion. 6 Although Briscoe argues that the District Court did not consider the availability of alternative sanctions as thoroughly as it should have, he does not point to any alternative sanctions that were available to the District Court in this case. 21 Generally, in determining whether a plaintiff’s claim is meritorious, we use the standard for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Poulis, 747 F.2d at 869-70. Thus, we deem “[a] claim, or defense . . . meritorious when the allegations of the pleadings, if established at trial, would support recovery by plaintiff or would constitute a complete defense.” Id. In the present case, several of Briscoe’s claims survived the summary judgment stage of litigation. Therefore, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Briscoe, his claims presented genuine issues of material fact, necessitating a trial on the issues. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Moore v. City of Phila., 461 F.3d 331, 340 (3d Cir. 2006). A fortiori, these claims surpassed the Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss standard, and under the Poulis analysis, his claims are deemed to have merit.