Opinion ID: 1610178
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: ¶ 13. A Rule 12(b)(6) motion should not be granted unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any set of facts that could be proved in support the claim. M.R.C.P. 12 cmt. We have stated that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss should not be granted unless it appears beyond a reasonable doubt that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which entitles him to relief. Butler v. Bd. of Supervisors for Hinds County, 659 So.2d 578, 581 (Miss.1995) (citations omitted). When reviewing the trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), this Court employs de novo review. Tucker v. Hinds County, 558 So.2d 869, 872 (Miss.1990). ¶ 14. As HeartSouth has also raised the possibility that the Rule 12(b)(6) motion may have been converted by the chancery court into a Rule 56(b) motion for summary judgment, the applicable standards for reviewing a Rule 56 summary judgment will also be discussed. A Rule 56(b) motion for summary judgment should not be granted unless no genuine issues of material fact exist. M.R.C.P. 56(b). The moving party must be entitled to judgment as a matter of law, and the burden of demonstrating that there is no genuine issue of material fact falls on the party requesting the summary judgment. Mozingo v. Scharf, 828 So.2d 1246, 1249 (Miss. 2002) (citing Short v. Columbus Rubber & Gasket Co., 535 So.2d 61, 63-64 (Miss. 1988)). The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Watts v. Tsang, 828 So.2d 785, 791 (Miss.2002) (quoting Conley v. Warren, 797 So.2d 881, 882 (Miss.2001) (citations omitted)). When ruling on a trial court's grant or denial of a motion for summary judgment, we employ a de novo standard of review. Id. at 1249 (citing Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Berry, 669 So.2d 56, 70 (Miss. 1996)).