noting that “a defendant may introduce certain pertinent documents if the plaintiff fails to do so . . . [because] [o]therwise a plaintiff with a legally deficient claim could survive a motion to dismiss simply by failing to attach a dispositive document upon which it relied.”
How later courts described this case
- noting that “a defendant may introduce certain pertinent documents if the plaintiff fails to do so . . . [because] [o]therwise a plaintiff with a legally deficient claim could survive a motion to dismiss simply by failing to attach a dispositive document upon which it relied.”
- explaining that the Court of Appeals has held that “documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to her claim”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
CINDY LI, et al., ) CASE NO. 5:22-cv-01730
)
Plaintiffs, ) JUDGE DAVID A. RUIZ
)
v. )
)
REVERE LOCAL SCHOOLS BOARD OF ) ORDER
EDUCATION, )
)
Defendant. )
On January 20, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion to strike exhibits attached to Defendant’s
Motion to dismiss. (R. 13). Specifically, Plaintiffs seeks to strike Exhibits A, B, and C attached
to Defendant’s motion on the grounds that they constitute matters outside the pleadings. Id.1
Defendant opposes the motion to strike (R. 15), and Plaintiffs filed a reply in support. (R. 16).
Plaintiff had already raised a substantially similar argument in a related case against the
same Defendants. (Case No. 5:20-cv-552, R. 29, PageID# 737-738). In this Complaint, as in his
earlier related action, Plaintiff alleged that he “satisfied his obligation to exhaust all
administrative remedies prior to asserting his Section 504, and ADA claims.” (R. 10, PageID#
1 Exhibit A consists of the police report of the shooting threat that triggered all the events
referenced in the Complaint. Exhibit B consists of Plaintiff’s Notice of Appeal filed with the
Summit County Court of Common Pleas. Exhibit C consists of Plaintiff’s appellate brief before
the state court.
366). He references several “Due Process” Actions, subsequent appeals therefrom, and his prior
lawsuits in this district asserting the same and/or similar claims. (R. 10).
The Court sees no reason to depart from the Court’s prior ruling in a related case, and
finds Plaintiffs’ express references in the Complaint “demonstrates that these documents are
central to Plaintiffs’ claims and invokes the exception which allows the court to consider
documents that are referenced in the Complaint as well as ‘matters of public record, orders, items
appearing in the record of the case, and exhibits attached to the complaint’ when ruling on a Rule
12(b)(6) motion.” (Case No. 5:20-cv-552, R. 29, PageID# 737-738). See, e.g., Amini v. Oberlin
College, 259 F.3d 493, 502 (6th Cir. 2001) (explaining that the Court of Appeals has held that
“documents that a defendant attaches to a motion to dismiss are considered part of the pleadings
if they are referred to in the plaintiff’s complaint and are central to her claim”) (quoting Weiner
v. Klais & Co., 108 F.3d 86, 89 (6th Cir. 1997) (noting that “a defendant may introduce certain
pertinent documents if the plaintiff fails to do so . . . [because] [o]therwise a plaintiff with a
legally deficient claim could survive a motion to dismiss simply by failing to attach a dispositive
document upon which it relied.”)); accord Marshall v. Wayne Cnty., Michigan, No. 22-1499,
2023 WL 2707222, at *6 (6th Cir. Mar. 30, 2023).
Consistent with the Court’s ruling in the related matter, the Court will consider the
attached exhibits to the extent appropriate. Therefore, Plaintiff’s motion to strike (R. 13) is
hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 19, 2023 s/ David A. Ruiz
DAVID A. RUIZ
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
2