From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Gasner v. County of Dinwiddie

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.
Jul 27, 1995
162 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 1995)

Summary

holding that a court may consider court records even when they are neither referenced in nor integral to the disputed complaint

Summary of this case from Chelko v. Doe

Opinion

         Securities fraud case was brought. Plaintiffs questioned whether documents attached to defendants' notice motion to dismiss could be considered. The District Court, Spencer, J., held that when plaintiff fails to introduce pertinent document as part of complaint, defendant may attach document to its motion to dismiss and court may consider same without converting motion to one for summary judgment.

         Order accordingly.

          Stephen Atherton Northup, Alan Durrum Wingfield, Robert Lawrence Brooke, Mays & Valentine, Richmond, VA, Robert Dean Perrow, Williams, Mullen, Christian & Dobbins, Richmond, VA, and Jonathan Steven Geldzahler,

Wright, Robinson, McCammon, Osthimer & Tatum, Richmond, VA, for plaintiffs.

          Kevin Philip Oddo, Herman Alexander Marshall, III, Woods, Rogers & Hazelgrove, Roanoke, VA, Stephen Thomas Gannon, Betty S.W. Graumlich, McSweeney, Burtch & Crump, Richmond, VA, Michael Allen Condyles, Steven Scott Biss, John Sykes Barr, Daniel Allen Gecker, Maloney, Barr & Huennekens, Richmond, VA, Gary Alvin Bryant, Palmer St. Clair Rutherford, Willcox & Savage, Norfolk, VA, Charles Frederick Witthoefft, Hirschler, Fleischer, Weinberg, Cox & Allen, Richmond, VA, and Danny Mark Howell and J. Jonathan Schraub, Robins Kaplan Miller & Ciresi, Washington, DC, for defendants.


          MEMORANDUM OPINION

          SPENCER, District Judge.

         This is a securities fraud case, arising from the dust of large and complex issuance of certain industrial development bonds. The plaintiffs' eighty-plus page Amended Complaint, which exhaustively sets forth their knowledge of these bond dealings, had but one attachment, a copy of a promissory note. On July 6, 1995 three clusters of defendants filed separate motions to dismiss. As appears to be an increasingly popular practice in this district, the motions filed by the Sands, Anderson defendants and the County defendants were styled in the alternative as motions for summary judgment. They were also anchored down to earth by a considerable volume of documentation.

Motions were filed by the " Sands, Anderson defendants" (Daniel M. Siegel and Sands, Anderson, Marks & Miller, P.C.,), the " County Defendants" (Dinwiddie County Board of Supervisors, Charles W. Burgess, Jr., Dewey P. Cashwell, and the Dinwiddie County Industrial Development Authority), and the " Carter Kaplan defendants" (Carter Kaplan & Co., L.P., CarKap, Inc., William P. Carter, and Robert R. Kaplan).

         During the course of their debates over the plaintiffs' motion, which the Court denies by an Order this day filed, the parties have questioned whether the Court may consider these additional documents in deciding the defendants' motions to dismiss. For clarity's sake as the plaintiffs prepare their response to the defendants' motions, the Court issues this Memorandum Opinion to settle the controversy.

         I

          The function of a motion to dismiss is to test " the sufficiency of a complaint; importantly, it does not resolve contests surrounding the facts, the merits of a claim, or the applicability of defenses." Republican Party of North Carolina v. Martin, 980 F.2d 943, 952 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 828, 114 S.Ct. 93, 126 L.Ed.2d 60 (1993). Thus, the standard approach to a motion to dismiss requires the Court to presume that all factual allegations in a plaintiff's complaint are true, see Puerto Rico ex rel. Quiros v. Alfred L. Snapp & Sons, 632 F.2d 365 (4th Cir.1980), aff'd, 458 U.S. 592, 102 S.Ct. 3260, 73 L.Ed.2d 995 (1982), to make all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, Johnson v. Mueller, 415 F.2d 354 (4th Cir.1969); MacKethan v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 439 F.Supp. 1090 (E.D.Va.1977), and not to dismiss any count unless it appears beyond a doubt that recovery would be impossible under any set of facts which could be proven. Doby v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 523 F.Supp. 1162 (E.D.Va.1981); Austin v. Reynolds Metals Co., 327 F.Supp. 1145 (E.D.Va.1970); see generally Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

          A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim does not permit the Court to look outside the complaint, and is thus distinguishable from a challenge to the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, which allows the Court to " look beyond the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint and view whatever evidence has been submitted on the issue to determine whether in fact subject matter jurisdiction exists." Capitol Leasing Co. v. FDIC, 999 F.2d 188, 191 (7th Cir.1993) (citations omitted); Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir.1982); Ocean Breeze Festival Park, Inc. v. Reich, 853 F.Supp. 906, 911 (E.D.Va.1994). Indeed, the Rules require that if the Court does consider " matters outside the complaint" it must convert the motion into a motion for summary judgment, affording the parties a " reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b); Fayetteville Investors v. Commercial Builders, Inc., 936 F.2d 1462, 1471 (4th Cir.1991).

          That being said, the fighting issue today is what constitutes " matters outside the complaint." More specifically, the question is whether the Court may consider documents not attached to, but referenced in the plaintiffs' Amended Complaint, when testing the legal sufficiency of that pleading. Cases from around the nation suggest that most courts have declared such reliance permissible without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. See, e.g., Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453-54 (9th Cir.) (" documents whose contents are alleged in a complaint and whose authenticity no party questions, but which are not physically attached to the pleading, may be considered" ), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1219, 114 S.Ct. 2704, 129 L.Ed.2d 832 (1994); Watterson v. Page, 987 F.2d 1, 3 (1st Cir.1993) (recognizing narrow exception to conversion rule for documents the authenticity of which are not disputed by the parties, official public records, documents central to the plaintiffs' claim and documents sufficiently referred to in the complaint); Pension Benefit Guar. Corp. v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192, 1196 (3d Cir.1993) (" a court may consider an indisputably authentic document that a defendant attaches as an exhibit to a motion to dismiss if the plaintiff's claims are based on the document" ), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 1042, 114 S.Ct. 687, 126 L.Ed.2d 655 (1994); Venture Assoc. Corp. v. Zenith Data Systems Corp., 987 F.2d 429, 431 (7th Cir.1993) (documents attached to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff's complaint and are central to his claim); Cortec Indus. Inc. v. Sum Holding L.P., 949 F.2d 42, 48 (2d Cir.1991) (conversion not required " [w]here plaintiff has actual notice of all of the information in the movant's papers and has relied upon these documents in framing the complaint" ), cert. denied sub nom. Cortec Indus. Inc. v. Westinghouse Credit Corp., 503 U.S. 960, 112 S.Ct. 1561, 118 L.Ed.2d 208 (1992); Teagardener v. Republic-Franklin Inc. Pension Plan, 909 F.2d 947, 949 (6th Cir.1990) (complaint's extensive quotation of unattached document permitted court to consider language and interpretation of document when defendant tendered it on motion to dismiss), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 1027, 111 S.Ct. 678, 112 L.Ed.2d 670 (1991). The Fourth Circuit, however, has yet to reach this question.

         Nevertheless, the issue is squarely before this Court and demands an answer. Finding the great weight of authority persuasive, this Court holds that when a plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his complaint, the defendant may attach the document to a motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court may consider the same without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. See 5 Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil, § 1327, at 762-63 (2d ed. 1990). This ruling encompasses not only documents quoted, relied upon, or incorporated by reference in the complaint, but also official public records pertinent to the plaintiffs' claims. See Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 998 F.2d at 1197; Watterson, 987 F.2d at 3; Cortec Indus., 949 F.2d at 47-48. There is but one limitation: the document must be one of unquestioned authenticity.

         II

         In this case, whether the defendants may rely upon particular documentary exhibits is a matter best left for later resolution. For now, at least, the plaintiffs are put on notice that even on the pending motions to dismiss, the scope of the Court's consideration extends well beyond the bare four corners of their Amended Complaint. This holding properly balances the plaintiffs' right to notice of those matters which may be addressed by the Court, and the defendants' right to test swiftly the legal soundness of the charges made against them. As the Third Circuit has noted, to pursue any other tack would risk permitting " a plaintiff with a legally deficient claim [to] survive a motion to dismiss simply by failing to attach a dispositive document upon which it relied." Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 998 F.2d at 1196.


Summaries of

Gasner v. County of Dinwiddie

United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.
Jul 27, 1995
162 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 1995)

holding that a court may consider court records even when they are neither referenced in nor integral to the disputed complaint

Summary of this case from Chelko v. Doe

holding that "when a plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his complaint, the defendant may attach the document to a motion to dismiss the complaint and the Court may consider the same without converting the motion to one for summary judgment. . . . This ruling encompasses not only documents quoted, relied upon, or incorporated by reference in the complaint, but also official public records pertinent to the plaintiffs' claims"

Summary of this case from Clark v. Cnty. of Fairfax

holding that official public records may also be considered as long as they are of unquestioned authenticity

Summary of this case from Elliott v. Great Point Partners, LLC

holding that official public records may also be considered as long as they are of unquestioned authenticity

Summary of this case from Campbell v. Geren

holding that documents "quoted, relied upon, or incorporated by reference in the complaint" may be considered on a motion to dismiss without converting the motion to one for summary judgment

Summary of this case from Paynter v. Household Life Ins. Co.

holding that "when a plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his complaint, the defendant may attach the document to a motion to dismiss without converting the motion to one for summary judgment"

Summary of this case from Size, Inc. v. Network Solutions, Inc.

holding that "when a plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his complaint, the defendant may attach the document to a motion to dismiss"

Summary of this case from Moore v. Flagstar Bank

noting that the use of such materials has "but one limitation: the document must be of unquestioned authenticity"

Summary of this case from Pouncey v. Guilford Cnty.

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, such as court records, even when the documents are neither referenced by nor integral to plaintiff's complaint

Summary of this case from Spellman v. Sch. Bd. of Chesapeake

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, such as court records, even when the documents are neither referenced by nor integral to plaintiff's complaint"

Summary of this case from Spellman v. Sch. Bd. of Chesapeake

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, such as court records, even when the documents are neither referenced nor integral to plaintiff's complaint

Summary of this case from Whitaker ex rel. & v. Hyundai Motor Co.

taking judicial notice of public documents, such as court records, when the documents are pertinent to the complaint but not referenced in the complaint

Summary of this case from Garvey v. Seterus, Inc.

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents

Summary of this case from Fields v. Cartledge

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents

Summary of this case from Hardwick v. Bank of Am., N.A.

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, even when the documents are neither referenced by nor integral to plaintiff's complaint

Summary of this case from Barkley v. Meeks

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, even when the documents are neither referenced by nor integral to plaintiff's complaint

Summary of this case from Ross v. Thomas

noting district courts may consider documents "relied upon" in the complaint where the documents are of "unquestioned authenticity."

Summary of this case from O'Connor v. Sand Canyon Corp.

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, such as court records, even when the documents are neither referenced by nor integral to plaintiff's complaint

Summary of this case from Chambers v. Apple Inc.

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, such as court records, even when the documents are neither referenced by nor integral to the Plaintiff's complaint

Summary of this case from Holmes v. Allen

allowing the defendant to attach a "pertinent document" to its motion to dismiss without converting the motion into one for summary judgment

Summary of this case from Benson v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am.

allowing the defendant to attach a "pertinent document" to its motion to dismiss without converting the motion into one for summary judgment

Summary of this case from Greene v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

allowing the district court to take judicial notice of public records even when the documents were not referenced in the plaintiffs' complaint, nor were they integral to plaintiffs' complaint, however finding that the document was pertinent to the plaintiffs' claims

Summary of this case from In re Sanchez

allowing the district court to take judicial notice of public records even when the documents were not referenced in the plaintiffs' complaint, nor were they integral to plaintiffs' complaint, however finding that the document was pertinent to the plaintiffs' claims

Summary of this case from In re Sanchez

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, such as court records, even when the documents were neither referenced by nor integral to plaintiff's complaint

Summary of this case from Canterbury v. J.P. Morgan Acquisition Corp.

permitting district court to take judicial notice of public documents, such as court records, even when the documents are neither referenced by nor integral to plaintiff's complaint

Summary of this case from Switzer v. Robertson
Case details for

Gasner v. County of Dinwiddie

Case Details

Full title:Alan H. GASNER, et al., Plaintiffs, v. The COUNTY OF DINWIDDIE, et al.…

Court:United States District Court, E.D. Virginia, Richmond Division.

Date published: Jul 27, 1995

Citations

162 F.R.D. 280 (E.D. Va. 1995)

Citing Cases

Wenzel v. Knight

But "when a plaintiff fails to introduce a pertinent document as part of his complaint, the defendant may…

United States ex rel. ProBuild Co. v. Scarborough

This is so even when the defendant submits the referenced document with its motion to dismiss, provided that…