contestada

A defendant filed a complaint against a third-party defendant for contribution permitted under federal law for any environmental damages for which the defendant may be found liable. The third-party defendant and the defendant were domiciled in the same state. The third-party defendant filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. The third-party defendant also submitted affidavits in support of its position, but the court refused to consider them. After taking all well-pleaded facts in the defendant's complaint as true and resolving all doubts and inferences in the defendant's favor, the court denied the motion to dismiss.

Required:
Has the court acted properly in making its ruling?

a. No, because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the complaint against the third-party defendant.
b. No, because the court failed to consider the third-party defendant's affidavits.
c. Yes, because the court took all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and resolved all doubts and inferences in the defendant's favor.
d. Yes, because a third-party defendant cannot file a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Respuesta :

The correct option is (c); Yes, because the court took all well-pleaded facts in the complaint as true and resolved all doubts and inferences in the defendant's favor.

What is third-part defendant?

A third-party defendant is a person or entity that the primary defendant sues and adds to the case under the theory that they are accountable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff's claim.

For the given case:

  • The court must accept as true all of the well-pleaded facts in the complaint and resolve any questions and inferences in the complainant's favor before deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a claim on which relief can be granted. The complainant in this case is the defendant.
  • Answer option A is erroneous because the third-party defendant's move was a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim on which relief can be given, not a petition to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Furthermore, not withstanding the lack of diversity of citizenship, the court has subject-matter jurisdiction over the defendant's contribution complaint since it is based on federal law, even though it may raise the question of lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on its own.
  • B is the incorrect response option. The court may only take into account the claims in the complaint, any exhibits attached to the complaint, and any matters susceptible to judicial notice when deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for failure to establish a claim on which relief can be granted. (Remember that for a request for summary judgment, the court could take into account outside information like an affidavit.)
  • Because any party against whom a claim is made may file a motion to dismiss for failure to articulate a claim upon which relief can be given, answer choice D is wrong.

To know more about jurisdiction and its types, here

https://brainly.com/question/10377896

#SPJ4

Otras preguntas