Stay Plugged In With Canon
Latest News & Updates

When a plaintiff brings a civil lawsuit, a defendant may respond with a motion to dismiss, arguing that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or that the court lacks jurisdiction, among other defects. The decision to file such a motion is a strategic choice: it can narrow or eliminate issues before costly discovery, trial preparation, or lengthy proceedings. A well-crafted response requires careful analysis of the pleading, understanding applicable standards of review, and identifying any jurisdictional, procedural, or substantive defects that can be properly challenged. It also involves preserving essential claims by ensuring they survive the court’s screening and remain viable at later stages of litigation.

The first step in opposing a motion to dismiss is a thorough review of the complaint, with an eye toward identifying allegations that plausibly support the claims. Legal standards vary by jurisdiction, but most courts require that a complaint plead facts that, if true, would entitle the plaintiff to relief. A successful opposition emphasizes factual allegations that show legal theories under which relief could be granted, and it addresses why the plaintiff’s claims are not merely speculative but legally cognizable. Drafting an opposition also involves aligning the facts with controlling precedents and distinguishing cases where dismissal was inappropriate.

A focused opposition begins with a clear statement of jurisdiction and a concise summary of the key claims that survive. Courts typically review a motion to dismiss on the face of the pleadings, without requiring discovery, so it is essential to present a compelling interpretation of the facts as alleged by the plaintiff. Include a careful discussion of the applicable law, demonstrating how the asserted facts meet each element of the claimed theories. When possible, connect factual elements to statutes, regulations, or contractual provisions that support the claim’s viability. A well-argued memorandum can keep material issues intact for trial.

Next, address procedural concerns that could lead to dismissal, such as improper service, statute of limitations, or failure to plead with specificity. Some motions to dismiss target the plaintiff’s standing, capacity to sue, or the court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. By articulating responsive arguments, a defendant’s counsel can show that these objections are not fatal and that a reasonable interpretation of the complaint preserves viable causes of action. Partner this with a request for leave to amend if the pleading minimally lacks necessary specificity but could be cured by amendment.

If the complaint raises potentially salvageable theories, the opposition might propose clarifications or amendments that strengthen those theories while avoiding unnecessary concessions. Courts often grant leave to amend when the existing pleading is deficient but capable of cure. In such scenarios, a proposed amended complaint attached to the opposition can demonstrate how the plaintiff could state a valid claim and what changes would be necessary. Simultaneously, it is prudent to preserve the record by opposing any suggestion that dismissal should foreclose later amendment, and to argue that the opponent’s arguments would be better addressed after some discovery.

Additionally, highlight any facts that are already present in the record or in exhibits attached to the complaint. When a motion to dismiss relies on documents outside the complaint, a court may convert the motion into one for summary judgment, potentially expanding the scope of evidence required. By identifying admissible materials and authenticating them, the plaintiff’s response can show that disputed facts exist and that the case should proceed to discovery and trial rather than be terminated at the outset. This approach reinforces the case’s resilience against early dismissal.

A strong opposition must weave doctrinal law with practical policy considerations. Explain why the alleged harm is real and how the proposed relief would mitigate that harm. Use precise citations to case law and statutory texts, clarifying how each element is satisfied by the facts alleged. Where the plaintiff's theory has the potential to be supported by multiple legal routes, outline each viable path and why dismissing all of them would be inappropriate. By presenting a robust, multi-faceted argument, the opposition reduces the likelihood that the court will prematurely narrow the issues at stake.

The filing should also address potential forfeitures or waive-arguments that the defendant might press later. For instance, if the defense claims that the plaintiff failed to plead with specificity, show how the factual allegations meet the required standards. If the defense asserts lack of standing, demonstrate how the plaintiff’s asserted injury and nexus to the defendant’s conduct satisfy standing requirements. A thoughtful response anticipates counterarguments and counters them with precise record-based evidence and reasoned legal interpretations.

While a motion to dismiss is decided on the pleadings, the opposition can discuss the potential impact of limited discovery on the case’s outcome. Argue that certain factual questions about causation, damages, or responsibility are not resolved by the complaint alone and that discovery could reveal legally cognizable elements. Emphasize that deferring dismissal preserves the plaintiff’s right to collect relevant data, interview witnesses, and obtain documentation necessary to prove liability. Courts often consider whether factual disputes, not merely legal arguments, exist, and the motion should not prematurely foreclose those avenues.

In some instances, compelling reasons exist to request a pause in proceedings to allow limited discovery specifically tied to issues raised in the motion to dismiss. Propose a narrow schedule for targeted discovery that screens for essential facts while maintaining the overall pace of litigation. By promoting discovery-focused relief, the opposition preserves important Claims that could become actionable through concrete evidence introduced at trial, ensuring the case remains on track for a full airing of the disputes.

The ultimate objective of opposing a motion to dismiss is to preserve the plaintiff’s claims for trial while maintaining a coherent, legally sound theory of recovery. This requires a careful balance between contesting defects and offering a path forward that respects procedural rules. A well-prepared opposition demonstrates how the plaintiff’s claims, even if framed broadly at the outset, fit within recognized legal theories and can be supported by admissible evidence after discovery. It also emphasizes procedural fairness, arguing that a premature dismissal would undermine the plaintiff’s opportunity to prove their case.

Concluding, the opposition should present a lucid roadmap for the court: the claims that survive, the doctrinal basis for each, the factual record that supports them, and a reasonable path to trial. By focusing on elements, gaps to be remedied, and the benefits of allowing discovery, counsel can increase the odds of preserving the important claims. A strategic, well-supported brief helps ensure that the dispute proceeds to trial where evidence can be fully evaluated, and the chafing questions of liability and damages can be addressed in a fair and transparent forum.