12B6 MOTION TO DISMISS SERIES

The court declined to rule on whether the Delaware Uniform Trade Secrets Act preempted common law claims, and relatedly, explained that choice of law issues are fact-intensive in order to apply the “most significant relationship” test, and typically not appropriate for resolution on a motion to dismiss. As with Rule 12(b)(6) motions, the court must assume the truthfulness of the material facts alleged in the complaint and all inferences reasonably drawn from these facts must be construed in favor of the responding party. The court recently stated the applicable standard of review for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion: With respect to the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the Court observes first that Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure requires a short and plain statement of the claims that will give the.The minimal notice pleading rules under Delaware law merely require “fair notice in a general way of the cause of action asserted, which shifts to the burden to determine the details of the cause of action by way of discovery for the purpose of raising legal defenses.” Slip op.

12B6 MOTION TO DISMISS SERIES

As long as a claimant “alleges facts in his description of a series of events from which a claim may reasonably be inferred and makes a specific claim for the relief he hopes to obtain, he need not announce with any greater particularity the precise legal theory he is using.” Slip op.May 25, 2018), the court explained several principles applicable to Rule 12(b)(6) motions that are eminently quotable for use in future briefs. A motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12 (b) (6) tests the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s complaint. A recent Court of Chancery decision elucidated several principles applicable to a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).

12b6 motion to dismiss