MacDonald v. Grace Church Seattle

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that the relevant FEP did not have subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s charges and therefore the 180- day time limit applied
• affirming dismissal of Title VII claims 6 where the plaintiff failed to timely file an EEOC charge
• “The allegations of the nonmoving 11 party must be accepted as true while any allegations made by the moving party that have been 12 denied or contradicted are assumed to be false.”
• where district court “mistakenly applied” Rule 26 12(b)(6) in granting motion to dismiss after an answer was filed, Ninth Circuit treated dismissal 27 “as a grant of a motion for judgment on the pleadings”
• “Defendants filed their motion to dismiss 15 after filing their answer. Thus, the motion should have been treated as a motion for judgment on 16 the pleadings, pursuant to Rule 12(c) or 12(h)(2).” (emphasis in original
• “A Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be made before the responsive pleading.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).