Motion to Dismiss

A motion to dismiss is a procedural device by which a defendant asks a court to terminate a lawsuit before the merits are tried. The motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the complaint or the court's ability to hear the case, rather than disputing the underlying facts. If granted, the case ends (sometimes "with prejudice," barring refiling; sometimes "without prejudice," allowing amendment).

In United States federal practice, the standard grounds are enumerated in Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which lists seven categories including lack of subject-matter jurisdiction (12(b)(1)), lack of personal jurisdiction (12(b)(2)), improper venue (12(b)(3)), insufficient service of process (12(b)(5)), and—most commonly invoked—failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (12(b)(6)). The pleading standard for 12(b)(6) was reshaped by Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly (2007) and Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), which together require that a complaint plead facts making the claim "plausible on its face," not merely conceivable.

Analogous mechanisms exist in other systems. In English civil procedure, a defendant may apply to strike out a statement of case under CPR 3.4 or seek summary judgment under CPR 24. Criminal cases also permit dismissal motions, often for defective indictment or insufficient evidence.

For international lawyers, the closest analogue is a preliminary objection before tribunals such as the International Court of Justice, where a respondent state challenges jurisdiction or admissibility before the merits phase—seen, for example, in Nicaragua v. United States (1984) and Croatia v. Serbia (2008).

Key features:

• Filed before the answer (in most US courts) or together with it.
• The court accepts well-pleaded factual allegations as true for purposes of decision.
• Legal conclusions, formulaic recitations, and implausible inferences are disregarded.
• Denial does not decide the merits; the case proceeds to discovery.