Sandy v. Bowen

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the plaintiff did not allege protected activity where the complaint “relate[d] only to a personality dispute”
• observing that a district court has “complete discretion” in determining whether to convert a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment
• declining to consider “anything ‘submitted by either party, by affidavit or otherwise, outside of the complaint and answer,’” in 12(c) motion even though case proceeded to discovery (alterations adopted
• “Because the EEOC [c]harge is part of an administrative proceeding, the [c]ourt may take judicial notice of it without converting [the] [d]efendant’s motion into a motion for summary judgment.”
• first quoting Gorman-Bakos v. Cornell Co-op Extension of Schenectady City, 252 F.3d 545, 554 (2d Cir. 2001); then quoting Clark Cty. Sch. Dist. v. Breeden, 532 U.S. 268, 273-74 (2001
• “When matters outside the pleadings are presented in support of, or in opposition to a [Rule 12(c)] motion, a district court must either exclude the additional material and decide the motion on the [pleading] alone or convert the motion to one for summary judgment[.]”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).