Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Ohio
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted is procedural and tests the sufficiency of the complaint. State ex rel. Hanson v. Guernsey Cty. Bd. of Commrs. (1992), 65 Ohio St. 3d 545.
Thus, the movant may not rely on allegations or evidence outside the complaint; otherwise, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment pursuant to Civil Rule 56. Id.
Therefore, the Court is required to ignore filings attached to the complaint and the transcript of proceedings except those portions set forth in the complaint.
To dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Civil Rule 12(B)(6), it must appear beyond doubt from the complaint that the Plaintiff can prove no set of facts entitling him to recovery. O'Brien v. University Community Tenants Union, Inc. (1975), 42 Ohio St. 2d 242.
In construing a complaint upon a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court must presume all factual allegations in the complaint are true and make reasonable inferences in front of the non moving party. York v. Ohio State Highway Patrol (1991), 60 Ohio St. 3d 143.
The general rules governing motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Civ.R. 12(C) are well established.
The pleadings must be construed in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party and every reasonable inference must be made. Peterson v. Teodosio (1973), 34 Ohio St. 2d 161, 63 Ohio Op. 2d 262, 297 N.E.2d 113; Burnside v. Leimbach (1991), 71 Ohio App. 3d 399, 594 N.E.2d 60.
In ruling on such a motion, the court must consider the pleadings liberally. See Case W. Res. Univ. v. Friedman (1986), 33 Ohio App. 3d 347, 348, 515 N.E.2d 1004.
No evidentiary materials are to be considered.
To dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted under Civ.R. 12(B)(6), it must be shown "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." York v. Ohio State Hwy. Patrol (1991), 60 Ohio St. 3d 143, 144, 573 N.E.2d 1063.
In applying this standard, all factual allegations in the complaint are taken as true and all reasonable inferences are made in favor of the nonmoving party.