Opinion ID: 2180320
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Consideration of Discovery and of the Amended Complaint

Text: [¶ 9] Fortin urges us to consider the discovery materials as part of our review of the court's order dismissing his complaint against the Diocese. He argues that [t]here would be no reason for the Law Court to order a remand for limited discovery if the Law Court did not intend that such discovery be considered as part of this appeal. [¶ 10] When we review a trial court's dismissal of a complaint, we view the facts alleged in the complaint as if they were admitted. Napieralski v. Unity Church of Greater Portland, 2002 ME 108, ¶ 4, 802 A.2d 391, 392. We then `examine the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether it sets forth elements of a cause of action or alleges facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief pursuant to some legal theory.' Id. (quoting In re Wage Payment Litig., 2000 ME 162, ¶ 3, 759 A.2d 217, 220). In addition to the allegations in the complaint, we may examine documents attached to the complaint. Me. Mun. Employees Health Trust v. Maloney, 2004 ME 51, ¶ 5, 846 A.2d 336, 338. [¶ 11] The discovery produced during the remand period was not before the trial court when it decided the Diocese's motion to dismiss. In addition, neither party requested the court to consider the discovery or to reconsider its earlier rulings in light of it. Consequently, we will not consider the discovery as part of our review of the court's dismissal of Fortin's claims against the Diocese pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). [¶ 12] We will, however, consider the allegations of the amended complaint and the exhibits attached to it in reviewing the court's dismissal. The court stated that it was denying the motion to amend the complaint because, in its view, the amendments could not survive a motion to dismiss for the constitutional reasons discussed in its July 2002 order. Because we conclude that the amendments survive dismissal on this basis, the court erred by denying the motion to amend the complaint. Accordingly, we treat the amended complaint as the complaint for purposes of our review.