CIDSAC Law Practice Test

Rule 12(b)(6) tests whether the complaint itself contains enough facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible, not merely possible. When a court grants this motion, it’s because the plaintiff has failed to allege facts that would support a legally cognizable claim, even if all the pleaded facts are true. In evaluating the complaint, the court accepts the well-pleaded factual allegations as true and draws reasonable inferences in the plaintiff’s favor, but it does not accept mere conclusions or speculative assertions. If, after considering the facts that are actually pleaded, there is no plausible claim for relief, dismissal is proper. This reflects the plausibility standard from Twombly and Iqbal. It’s distinct from summary judgment, which uses a full evidentiary record to determine there are no genuine disputes of material fact, and it’s distinct from judgments on the merits after trial.