Federal Court Ruling Increases Trial Court Ability to View Documents on Motion to Dismiss

A panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit that covers the states of Florida, Georgia and Alabama issued a decision on July 12, 2024, that clarified what a trial court can rely on in deciding a motion to dismiss. See Johnson v. City of Atlanta, No. 22-11359, -- F.4th --, 2024 WL 3384936 at *4-6 (11th Cir. July 12, 2024).

Background

The plaintiff, Charles Johnson Jr., brought a Section 1983 excessive force claim against a police officer and the City of Atlanta in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia for injuries he sustained when he was arrested for driving while intoxicated. The City of Atlanta moved to dismiss the claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim, while the police officer answered the complaint and referred to bodycam video footage of the incident with the plaintiff. The officer then moved under Rule 12(c) for judgment on the pleadings and submitted the bodycam video to support his motion. The federal trial court granted both motions, relying on the bodycam video.

In addressing the incorporation-by-reference doctrine, the court of appeals reviewed various conflicting opinions previously issued by the court that had required that, for a document or evidence to be considered on a motion to dismiss, it must have been referenced in or attached to the plaintiff's complaint. Those decisions stated that a three-part test must be met in order for a trial court to incorporate the document by reference and, thus, consider it on a motion to dismiss: 1) the document was referenced in the complaint or attached to the complaint, 2) the document was central to the plaintiff's claims and 3) its authenticity was undisputed. The court drilled down through prior decisions to follow the first published decision by the court that addressed whether a document not referenced in a complaint nor attached to the complaint could be considered by the trial court, which had concluded that only two elements are required and that a document need not be referenced in a complaint nor attached to it.

In the recent Johnson decision, the Eleventh Circuit finally resolved that the incorporation-by-reference doctrine requires only two elements, stating that:

when resolving a motion to dismiss or a motion for judgment on the pleadings, a court may properly consider a document not referred to or attached to a complaint under the incorporation-by-reference doctrine if the document is (1) central to the plaintiff's claims; and (2) undisputed, meaning that its authenticity is not challenged.

Johnson, 2024 WL 3384936 at *6

Conclusion and Takeaways

• The Johnson decision should result in more upfront transparency into the true facts of a dispute and a greater ability of courts to grant motions to dismiss with prejudice for claims that are refuted by a document central to the plaintiff's claim and undisputedly authentic.
• For example, in the consumer class action context, a claim alleging that a misrepresentation was made in the sale of a product could now be dismissed if there is a receipt of the transaction that contains disclosures that conclusively refute the allegation. Prior to this decision, a defendant might have to wait until the summary judgment stage to have the trial court consider the receipt as evidence.
• Motions to dismiss will be a more powerful litigation tool to force early resolution of cases and perhaps bring the parties to the settlement table earlier.

If you have any questions about the ruling, please contact the authors.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.