Federal courts grant motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) at least in part roughly 75% of the time, according to Federal Judicial Center research covering 2010, up from 66% in 2006.1University of Richmond Law Review. An Updated Quantitative Study of Iqbal’s Impact on 12(b)(6) Motions The raw number overstates how often cases actually end, though, because a large share of granted motions come with permission to amend the complaint and try again. The odds also swing significantly based on the type of claim, whether the plaintiff has a lawyer, and how specifically the complaint is written.
What the Grant Rate Actually Looks Like
A study by Professor Patricia Moore found that 61% of Rule 12(b)(6) motions were granted in full under the current plausibility standard, compared to 46% under the older standard that governed before 2007.1University of Richmond Law Review. An Updated Quantitative Study of Iqbal’s Impact on 12(b)(6) Motions Separate research from UC Law San Francisco found that even before the standard shifted, motions to dismiss succeeded more than 73% of the time, with no category of case showing a grant rate below 65%.2UC Law San Francisco. A New Look at Dismissal Rates in Federal Civil Cases
Case type is the single biggest variable. Constitutional civil rights claims fare especially badly. Courts were nearly four times more likely to grant a full dismissal without leave to amend in civil rights cases under the current standard than under the old one.1University of Richmond Law Review. An Updated Quantitative Study of Iqbal’s Impact on 12(b)(6) Motions Employment discrimination claims follow a similar pattern. Contract and commercial disputes tend to survive at higher rates.
Representation matters too. A study of the Northern District of California found that 56% of pro se claims couldn’t survive even a preliminary motion to dismiss.3Cornell Law School. Self-Represented Litigants and the Pro Se Crisis Plaintiffs without counsel face a materially steeper climb than those with lawyers who can draft complaints tailored to the pleading standard.
One important nuance: the grant rate and the case-ending rate are not the same thing. Moore’s study showed the percentage of motions granted with leave to amend jumped from 6% under the old standard to 21% under the current one.1University of Richmond Law Review. An Updated Quantitative Study of Iqbal’s Impact on 12(b)(6) Motions More motions are being granted, but a larger share of those dismissals give plaintiffs a second chance to plead the case better.
Why the Grant Rate Is So High: The Plausibility Standard
The legal test judges use shifted with two Supreme Court decisions, Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly in 2007 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal in 2009. Before those rulings, the old standard from Conley v. Gibson held that a complaint should survive unless “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts” supporting the claim. That was an extremely forgiving bar.
The current standard demands more. A complaint must contain enough factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim that is “plausible on its face.” A claim has facial plausibility, the Court said in Iqbal, “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”4Justia. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662 (2009) It is not a probability requirement, but it demands more than a bare possibility of wrongdoing.
Judges apply the standard in two steps. First, they set aside purely legal conclusions and boilerplate recitations of the elements, which don’t count. Second, they look at the remaining factual allegations, accept them as true, and ask whether they plausibly support the claim. The Court described this as a “context-specific task” drawing on the judge’s experience and common sense.4Justia. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 US 662 (2009) That built-in subjectivity is a large part of why outcomes vary from case to case and judge to judge.
What Moves the Odds in a Specific Case
The complaint itself is the biggest lever. A vague complaint full of conclusory assertions (“defendant acted negligently” with no facts explaining how) is exactly what the plausibility standard was designed to weed out. A complaint that tells a concrete story with dates, actions, and consequences is far harder to dismiss than one that merely recites legal elements.
Briefing quality on both sides plays a real role. Judges see these motions constantly, and a sloppy motion that doesn’t identify specific deficiencies wastes the court’s time. An opposition that walks the court through exactly how the factual allegations satisfy each element of the claim can save a borderline case.
Jurisdiction shapes the odds too. Different districts read Iqbal differently, and controlling appellate precedent varies. Some circuits apply the plausibility standard aggressively; others use a lighter touch. Combine that with the case-type effect, and identical complaints can produce different outcomes in different courthouses.
Statute of limitations is worth flagging separately. It’s technically an affirmative defense, but when the complaint itself shows on its face that the filing deadline has passed, courts can dismiss at the motion stage without waiting for discovery. Cases that look time-barred from the pleadings rarely survive.
What “Granted” Actually Means
A granted motion doesn’t always end the lawsuit. The court will specify whether the dismissal is “with prejudice” or “without prejudice,” and that distinction determines whether the plaintiff is finished or just starting over.
A dismissal without prejudice lets the plaintiff fix the complaint and refile. Courts frequently take this route when the underlying claim might have merit but the pleading fell short of the plausibility standard.5Legal Information Institute. Dismissal Without Prejudice Federal Rule 15(a) reinforces this approach by directing courts to “freely give leave” to amend “when justice so requires.”6Prosecutor Angus. FRCP 15 – Amended and Supplemental Pleadings Most plaintiffs get at least one chance to amend before a court will dismiss with prejudice.
A dismissal with prejudice is a final judgment on the claim. The plaintiff cannot refile it. Courts reserve this for situations where the defect can’t be cured by better pleading: the statute of limitations has run, the claim simply doesn’t exist under the law, or the plaintiff has already amended multiple times and still can’t state a plausible claim. When you read that motions are granted 75% of the time, remember that a substantial slice of those grants are the amendable kind, not the case-ending kind.
What Happens if the Motion Is Denied
If the court denies the motion, the case moves forward. The defendant must file an answer within 14 days after notice of the ruling, and the case then enters discovery.7Legal Information Institute. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12
Defendants generally cannot appeal a denial right away. Under 28 U.S.C. ยง 1291, appellate courts have jurisdiction only over “final decisions” of district courts.8GovInfo. 28 USC 1291 – Final Decisions of District Courts A denied motion is an interlocutory order that keeps the case alive, so the defendant typically has to wait until after a final judgment to raise the issue on appeal. Narrow exceptions exist, such as the collateral order doctrine for certain immunity claims, but they rarely apply to a standard motion to dismiss.
For plaintiffs, a denial often reshapes the case economically. It signals that the court found the complaint legally sufficient to proceed, which changes the settlement calculus. Defendants who were counting on early dismissal now face the cost and exposure of full litigation, and that shift in leverage is frequently where cases resolve.