Opinion ID: 2469348
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Materials Properly Considered on a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

Text: One of the critical issues in this appeal is whether the District Court properly considered not only the Complaint, Old Navy's Answer, and the written documents attached to the Complaint in deciding Old Navy's Rule 12(c) motion, but also five email exhibits to Old Navy's Counterclaims exhibits that were attached to Old Navy's Answer only by virtue of the fact that its Answer and Counterclaims were filed in the same document. L-7 argues the District Court improperly considered the exhibits without converting Old Navy's 12(c) motion to one for summary judgment, as required by Rule 12(d). On a 12(c) motion, the court considers the complaint, the answer, any written documents attached to them, and any matter of which the court can take judicial notice for the factual background of the case. Roberts v. Babkiewicz, 582 F.3d 418, 419 (2d Cir.2009). A complaint is [also] deemed to include any written instrument attached to it as an exhibit, materials incorporated in it by reference, and documents that, although not incorporated by reference, are `integral' to the complaint. Sira v. Morton, 380 F.3d 57, 67 (2d Cir.2004) (citations omitted) (quoting Chambers v. Time Warner, Inc., 282 F.3d 147, 153 (2d Cir.2002)). There is no question that the email exhibits were attached to Old Navy's Answer, even if they were only part of Old Navy's Counterclaims. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 10(c) (a copy of a written instrument that is an exhibit to a pleading is a part of the pleading for all purposes) (emphasis added). Moreover, these emailsof which L-7 had notice well before Old Navy attached them to its Answer (because L-7 sent or received them)were integral to the negotiation exchange that L-7 identified as the basis for its Complaint. See Sira, 380 F.3d at 67 (document not expressly cited in complaint was incorporated into the pleading because [it] was integral to [plaintiff's] ability to pursue his cause of action); Chambers, 282 F.3d at 153 (document integral to complaint where complaint relie[d] heavily upon its terms and effect) (quotation marks omitted); Cortec Indus., Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991) (necessity of translating motion into one under Rule 56 largely dissipated where plaintiff had actual notice of information in documents and relied upon [them] in framing the complaint). Plaintiffs' failure to include matters of which as pleaders they had notice and which were integral to their claimand that they apparently most wanted to avoidmay not serve as a means of forestalling the district court's decision on [a 12(b)(6)] motion. Cortec, 949 F.2d at 44. For these reasons, in reviewing de novo Old Navy's motion for judgment on the pleadings, we draw all factswhich we assume to be true unless contradicted by more specific allegations or documentary evidencefrom the Complaint and from the exhibits attached thereto, [2] and we also consider the emails attached to Old Navy's Counterclaims. See Blue Tree Hotels Inv. (Canada), Ltd. v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc., 369 F.3d 212, 222 (2d Cir.2004) (discrediting allegation belied by letters attached to the complaint); Hirsch v. Arthur Andersen & Co., 72 F.3d 1085, 1092 (2d Cir.1995) (General, conclusory allegations need not be credited ... when they are belied by more specific allegations of the complaint.). The facts thus derived, viewed in the light most favorable to L-7, are as follows.