Group items tagged

le 12. Defenses and Objections - When and How Presented - by Pleading or Motion - Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 1. Defendant shall answer within 20 days of service or, if service was waived, within 60 days after request for waiver was sent 2. Every defense shall be asserted in the responsive pleading except that the following defenses may be made by motion: 1. Lack of jurisdiction over subject matter 2. Lack of jurisdiction over person 3. Improper venue 4. Insufficiency of process 5. Insufficiency of service of process 6. Failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted 7. Failure to join a party under Rule 19 Ü If (6) is asserted and matters outside the pleading are consider, goes to Rule 56, summary judgment. 3. Judgment on the Pleadings - mainly used by Π when Δ's responsive pleading doesn't dispute Π's claim 7. Consolidation of Defenses in Motion - If a Rule 12 motion is made, any defense or objection is waived unless exception in (h)(2) 8. Waiver or Preservation of Certain Defenses

STANDARD OF REVIEW When determining a motion to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim, allegations of the complaint, as well as any reasonable inferences [and annexed exhibits] which may be drawn therefrom in plaintiff's favor, are to be taken as true. Brum v. Town of Dartmouth, 44 Mass.App.Ct. 318, 321 (1998). Eyal v. Helen Broadcasting Corp., 411 Mass. 426, 429 (1991) and cases cited. See also Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kosteas, 378 Mass. 85, 87 (1979); Nader v. Citron, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977). Dismissal is also not appropriate where GiGi is entitled to any form of relief for any wrong or injury. Brum, at 321. Citron v. Nader, 372 Mass. 96, 98 (1977), quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Mass.R.Civ.P. 8(f). Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, article XI. "A complaint is not subject to dismissal if it could support relief on any theory of law" [Whitinsville Plaza, Inc. v. Kosteas, 378 Mass. 85, 89 (1979)], "even though the particular relief [which plaintiff] has demanded and the theory on which he seems to rely may not be appropriate." Nader, 372 Mass. at 104 (citations omitted). "A complaint should [also] not be dismissed simply because it asserts a new or extreme theory of liability or improbable facts." Jenkins v. Jenkins, 15 Mass.App.Ct. 934, 934 (1983). "[I]t is important that new legal theories be explored and assayed in light of actual facts rather than a pleader's suppositions." New England Insulation Co. v. General Dynamics Corp., 26 Mass.App.Ct. 28, 30 (1988) quoting 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, §1357 at 603 (1969 and supp. 1987). Patriarca v. Center for Living and Working, Inc., 1999 WL 791888 at 4 (Mass.Super. Sept. 8, 1999) (Wernick, J.). ARGUMENTS 1.Where Article V of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights requires all public employees of the three branches of the government of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to be accountable to the people at all times, this court is precluded from applying