Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)

Citation: Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Parent Document: Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc., 356 F.3d 1058 (2004)
Jurisdiction: United States (federal)
Effective Date: 2004-01-26
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/784956/edwards-v-marin-park-inc/ ↗

Full Text

1,307 chars

30
The difference between a dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and one under Rule 41(b) is not merely formal. For one thing, a Rule 41(b) dismissal is deemed a sanction for disobedience, while a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal carries no such stigma. But more important is the different posture in which the two sorts of dismissal reach this court. We review a Rule 41(b) dismissal only for abuse of discretion in applying the five factors set forth in Ferdik, 963 F.2d at 1260, which pertain to the propriety of the sanction, not to the merits of the underlying question (such as whether a complaint states a claim). See Yourish, 191 F.3d at 986. Yet we review a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal de novo, reviewing directly the question whether the plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief could be granted. See Stone, 58 F.3d at 436-37. An overbroad reading of Yourish, demanding conversion of a 12(b)(6) dismissal into one under Rule 41(b) even when the plaintiff has informed the court of her decision not to amend, would not only create an unnecessary conflict with the en banc opinion in WMX Technologies. It would also unjustly deny plaintiffs, like Edwards, who exercise their right to stand on a complaint their right to an appeal on the merits of the question whether the complaint is adequate as a matter of law.

Other Sections in This Document (51)

Full Text