DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINTPage 3 of 9
clause in a case they quote. Plaintiffs arguably filed their complaint knowing it was completelygroundless, because it is in reality a political tool used in an attempt to intimidate defendants andmislead the electorate. The court should not expend precious resources on plaintiffs’ obviously baseless lawsuit. Pursuant to the authorities cited below, the court should dismiss the complaint.
Under rule 8(a)(2) of the Rules of Civil Procedure for the Superior Courts of Arizona(“RCPSCA”) a plaintiff’s complaint must contain a “short and plain statement of the claimshowing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Arizona follows the notice pleading standard, the purpose of which is to “give the opponent fair notice of the nature and basis of the claim andindicate generally the type of litigation involved.”
Mackey v. Spangler
, 81 Ariz. 113, 115, 301 P.2d1026, 1027-28 (1956);
Cullen v. Auto-Owners Ins Co
., 218 Ariz. 417, 419, 189 P.3d 344, 346(Ariz. 2008) (“Arizona follows a notice pleading standard”).A plaintiff’s failure to comply with rule 8(a)(2) subjects its complaint to dismissal for “[f]ailure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted” pursuant to RCPSCA 12(b)(6).
,218 Ariz. at 419, 189 P.3d at 346. When evaluating a motion under rule 12(b)(6) the court musttreat as true all allegations of material fact “and indulge all reasonable inferences therefrom.”
. Itshould be noted that Arizona courts diverge from their federal counterparts when evaluating pleadings under rule 8. The former merely require factual allegations to be “plausible.”
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 1969 (2007)). In contrast, the Arizona SupremeCourt has directed courts in this state “
to consider only the reasonable inferences
that can be drawnfrom well-pled facts. . . look[ing] only to the pleading itself”
. (emphasis added).Further, a complaint that merely states legal conclusions without supporting factualallegations will not survive a motion to dismiss.
, 218 Ariz. at 419, 189 P.3d at 346;
Grand v. Nacchio
, 225 Ariz. 171, 175 n.1 236 P.3d 398, 402 (Ariz. 2010) (“In evaluating motions to dismiss,Arizona courts consider only the ‘well-pled facts,’ not legal conclusions”). Likewise, a complaintthat relies on mere conclusory statements of fact will fail.
Coleman v. City of Mesa
, 284 P.3d 863,867 (Ariz. 2012). In summary, dismissal is appropriate where plaintiffs “as a matter of law . . .