Plumhoff v. Rickard

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that an amendment expanding the scope of a claim for environmental cleanup costs to include a geographic area explicitly excluded from the original complaint nevertheless related back to the original pleading
• holding that because the settlement agreement was filed with the court and is a publicly available record, it is properly subject to judicial notice and thus may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion
• observing that materials “filed with the bankruptcy court and . . . a publicly available record” are “properly subject to judicial notice”
• noting that filings in other courts are “properly subject to judicial notice and thus may be considered on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion 28 to dismiss”
• noting that a district court may be affirmed “on any ground supported by the record”
• explaining that “[d]ismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) on the basis of an affirmative defense is proper” where the allegations in the complaint establish the defense

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).