Court Opinion

ID: 9634232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 13:06:26.238242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:08:59.208282
License: Public Domain

Skoglund, J.,
concurring. I concur in all aspects of the decision but disagree with this Court’s suggestion that only a defendant/movant could convert a Rule 12(b) motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. See 172 Vt. at 632 n.2,783 A.2d at 420 n.2. Under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, either the pleader, the moving party, or both, may bring the conversion provision into operation by submitting matters extraneous to the complaint. See Santiago v. Canon U.S.A., Inc., 138 F.3d 1, 4 (1st Cir. 1998); Bapat v. Connecticut Dep’t of Health Servs., 815 F. Supp. 525, 529 (D. Conn. 1992); 5A C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §1366 (2d ed. 1990).
We have not had occasion to specifically address this issue under our state rules of civil procedure. It may not be typical that the pleader would initiate such conversion to summary judgment, as that may result in a binding final determination against him rather than a test of the law of the case, but I believe it remains a possibility under V.R.C.P. 12(b). In the ease at bar, the trial court obviously did not convert the motion to dismiss to one of summary judgment as evidenced by that court’s entry order. Further support for this conclusion is found in the fact that the court did not notify the parties that it was considering conversion from a motion to dismiss to one of summary judgment and, thus, provide them the opportunity to supplement their submissions as required by the rule. See V.R.C.P. 12(b). I am authorized to say that Justice Johnson joins in this concurrence.