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.
<h3>What is third-part defendant?</h3>
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
brainly.com/question/10377896
#SPJ4
The rate of violent hate crime in 2005 was less than the rate of violent crime in 2019.
<h3>Comparing the rates of violent hate crime across the years. </h3>
- Violent hate crime was at a rate of just over 0.8% in 2005.
- In 2019, this had risen to a rate of 1%.
This comparison is not surprising because there had been a downward trend in violent hate crime but this began to rise in 2016 till it reached the rate of 1.0% in 2019.
<h3>Motivations and perpetrators of those hate crimes </h3>
- Motivated by race and ethnicity.
- Perpetrated by far right activists.
With the election of Donald Trump, far right activists gained renewed momentum as they felt he was on their side. As a result, they increased their tendency to engage in violent hate crime.
Find out more on far right activists at brainly.com/question/511410.
