Supreme Court Report

Supreme Court of the United States · Official docket →

William Boateng v. BP, P.L.C., et al.

Paid petition · United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, No. 18-31032 · judgment July 3, 2019

Certiorari denied · December 9, 2019
Pre-decision estimate: 3% cert probability

Before the decision, well below the 4.1% base rate, with no standout signals pointing toward a grant.

Questions presented

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(d) provides, “If, on a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) or 12(c), matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion must be treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56. All parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion.”

  1. Can a Court of Appeals treat a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as a converted motion for summary judgment under Rule 12(d) when the district court itself decided the motion as one to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and did not treat the motion as one converted to summary judgment pursuant to Rule 12(d)?

  2. Does the non-movant’s presentation to the district court of materials beyond the complaint alone satisfy the “reasonable opportunity” of Rule 12(d), or is something more required?

Counsel of record

For petitioner
Michael James Confusione
Hegge & Confusione

For respondent
Paul D. Collier
Kirkland & Ellis, LLP

Case

Conference history
Distributed for 1 conference

Proceedings

  1. Dec 09 2019
    Petition DENIED.
  2. Nov 20 2019
    DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 12/6/2019.
  3. Nov 04 2019
    Waiver of right of respondent BP, P. L. C., et al. to respond filed.
  4. Oct 30 2019
    Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due December 4, 2019)