VOlUME 05 ISSUE 06 JUNE 2022
Donald L. Buresh, Ph.D., J.D., LL.M
Touro University Worldwide
Google Scholar Download Pdf
ABSTRACT:
This essay simulates a Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) ruling by a federal court. The case that serves as the basis for this simulation is Atkinson v. Facebook et al. The simulated ruling is not the actual ruling, but a simulated ruling, demonstrating how the Willging criteria can be successfully employed when a federal court rules on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. The methodology that is employed herein reviews the counts in Atkinson’s complaint, presuming that a Rule 12(b)(6) was filed for each count. Each ruling is divided into three parts. In the first part, a summary of the count is discussed. Second, the reasons why the count is not appropriate is described. Finally, the Willging criteria are employed, showing where the motion fits within the criteria. Finally, for each motion, the essay concludes whether the Rule 12(b)(6) motions should either be granted or rejected with or without prejudice.
KEYWORDS:Atkinson v. Facebook et al., Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, Conley v. Gibson, FRCP Rule 12(b)(6), Willging Criteria,
REFERENCES
1) Amadasu v. The Christ Hospital, 514 F.3d 504, 506 (6th Cir. 2008), quoting Columbia National Res., Inc. v. Tatum, 58 F3d 1101, 1109 (6th Cir. 1995).
2) Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing, Legal Information Institute (n.d.), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/rule_12.
3) Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (2007), available at https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=913703117340005992&q=Bell+Atlantic+Corp.+v.+Twombly&hl=en&as_sdt=400006&as_vis=1.
4) Association of Cleveland Firefighters v. City of Cleveland, Ohio, 502 F.3d 545, 548 (6th Cir. 2007), available at https://casetext.com/case/assoc-of-cleveland-v-cleveland,
5) Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, supra, note 3 at 1965-65.
6) Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/355/41/.
7) Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, supra, note 3 at 1969.
8) Sua Sponte, LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE (n.d.), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/sua_sponte.
9) Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing, supra, note 2 at 12(d).
10) Employers Insurance of Wausau v. Petroleum Specialties, Inc., 69 F.3d 98, 104-05 (6th Cir. 1995), available at https://casetext.com/case/employers-of-wausau-v-petroleum-specialities.
11) Rule 12. Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing, supra, note 2 at 12(c).
12) Yoichiro Hamabe, Functions of Rule 12(b)(6) in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: A Categorization Approach, 15 CAMPBELL L. REV. 2, 128-29 (Spring 1993), available at https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1249&co ntext=clr.
13) FLEMING JAMES JR. ET AL., CIVIL PROCEDURE at 148 (Little Brown & Co Law 4th ed. 1992).
14) THOMAS E, WILLGING, USE OF RULE 12(B)(6) IN TWO DISTRICT FEDERAL COURTS, 16 (Federal Judicial Center 1989).
15) Yoichiro Hamabe, supra, note 12.
16) Norman Pattis, Atkinson v. Facebook: Here's the Writ, THE BLOG OF NORMAN PATTIS (Nov. 12, 2019), available at https://www.pattisblog.com/blog/7090/atkinson-v.-facebook-heres-the-writ/.
17) Alexandra Ma, & Ben Gilbert, Facebook Understood How Dangerous the Trump-Linked Data Firm Cambridge Analytica Could Be Much Earlier than It Previously Said. Here's Everything That's Happened Up Until Now, BUSINESS INSIDER (Aug. 23, 2019), available at https://www.businessinsider.com/cambridge-analytica-a-guide-to-the-trump-linked-data-firm-that-harvested-50-million-facebook-profiles-2018-3.
18) Norman Pattis, supra, note 29.
19) Zeran v. America Online, Inc., 129 F.3d 327 (4th Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 524 U.S. 937 (1998), available at https://casetext.com/case/zeran-v-america-online.
20) Constructive Trust, LEGAL INFORMATION INSTITUTE (n.d.,), available at https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/constructive_trust.
21) Communist Party v 522 Valencia, Inc., 35 CA4th 980, 990 (1995), available at https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/35/980.html.
22) Eric Goldman, Facebook Isn’t a Constructive Public Trust–Cameron Atkinson v. Facebook, TECHNOLOGY & MARKETING LAW BLOG (Dec. 29, 2020), available at https://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2020/12/facebook-isnt-a-constructive-public-trust-cameron-atkinson-v-facebook.htm.
23) Yoichiro Hamabe, supra, note 12.
24) Norman Pattis, supra, note 29.
25) MetNews Staff Writer, No Cause of Action Lies Against Facebook for Barring Posts, METROPOLITAN NEWS-ENTERPRISE (Nov. 23, 2021), available at http://www.metnews.com/articles/2021/Facebook_11232021.htm.
26) Yoichiro Hamabe, supra, note 12.
27) Norman Pattis, supra, note 29.
28) Yoichiro Hamabe, supra, note 12.
29) Adam N. Hirsch, It’s All in the Details: The Importance of FRCP Rule 9 in Fraud Cases, FINANCIAL POISE (Sep. 24, 2020), available at https://www.financialpoise.com/frcp-rule-9-fraud/.
30) Norman Pattis, supra, note 29.
31) Yoichiro Hamabe, supra, note 12.
32) Norman Pattis, supra, note 29.
33) Eric Goldman, supra, note 56.
34) Yoichiro Hamabe, supra, note 12.
35) Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985), available at https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/474/140/.
36) Willis v. Sullivan, 931 F.2d 390, 401 (6th Cir. 1991), available at https://casetext.com/case/willis-v-sullivan.