Nooney v. Stubhub, Inc., No. 27408.
| Court | Supreme Court of South Dakota |
| Writing for the Court | ZINTER, Justice. |
| Citation | 873 N.W.2d 497 |
| Parties | John K. NOONEY and Kimberly Nooney, Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STUBHUB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant and Appellee. |
| Docket Number | No. 27408. |
| Decision Date | 30 December 2015 |
873 N.W.2d 497
John K. NOONEY and Kimberly Nooney, Plaintiffs and Appellants,
v.
STUBHUB, INC., a Delaware Corporation, Defendant and Appellee.
No. 27408.
Supreme Court of South Dakota.
Considered on Briefs Nov. 30, 2015.
Decided Dec. 30, 2015.
Robert J. Galbraith of Nooney & Solay, LLP, Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for plaintiffs and appellants.
Jeffery D. Collins, Dana Van Beek Palmer of Lynn, Jackson, Shultz & Lebrun, P.C., Rapid City, South Dakota, Attorneys for defendant and appellee.
ZINTER, Justice.
Facts and Procedural History
[¶ 2.] In June 2014, Nooneys purchased tickets from StubHub for a concert in Colorado. The day of the concert, they traveled to the concert venue and presented their tickets. The tickets were invalid, and Nooneys were denied access to the concert. On October 21, 2014, they commenced this action for breach of contract and fraudulent inducement.
[¶ 3.] Nooneys' complaint alleged StubHub made representations that the tickets would allow access to the concert. In the event that the tickets were invalid, Nooneys pleaded that the StubHub "Fan Protect Guarantee" represented that StubHub would provide comparable replacement tickets. Nooneys pleaded that after being denied access to the event, StubHub informed them that StubHub would not honor the Fan Protect Guarantee.
[¶ 4.] StubHub moved to dismiss under SDCL 15–6–12(b)(5), arguing that Nooneys' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. In support of the motion, StubHub submitted an affidavit of a StubHub employee. The affidavit included four exhibits: (1) screen shots of a StubHub registration page and a user agreement link, (2) a copy of a 2010 user
[873 N.W.2d 499
agreement that was in effect when John Nooney initially registered with StubHub, (3) a copy of a 2014 user agreement that was in effect when John Nooney purchased the tickets for the concert, and (4) a screen shot of the StubHub Fan Protect Guarantee.
[¶ 6.] Nooneys' appeal presents two questions. First, a procedural question—whether the court erred in considering the Fan Protect Guarantee without treating the motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment. Second, a substantive question—whether Nooneys' complaint failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.
Decision
[¶ 7.] A court may not consider documents "outside" the pleadings when ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. SDCL 15–6–12(b)(5). If "matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment." Id.
[¶ 8.] In this case, the Fan Protect Guarantee was not "outside" of the pleadings. Nooneys effectively incorporated the Fan Protect Guarantee in their complaint...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Richardson v. Richardson, 27754
...by the notice of review.3 We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Nooney v. StubHub, Inc. , 2015 S.D. 102, ¶ 9, 873 N.W.2d 497, 499.4 The grounds for divorce set forth in SDCL 25-4-2 are: adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect, habitual intemperanc......
-
State v. Arguello, No. 27351.
...was not fundamental error meriting automatic reversal where the party failed to object and no prejudice or harm was shown).5 See also [873 N.W.2d 497State v. Lopes, 78 Conn.App. 264, 826 A.2d 1238, 1252–53 (2003) (holding that the defendant was not entitled to reversal without a showing of ......
-
Thom v. Barnett, 29546
...requirements for ratification of an action by the real party in interest. See generally Nooney v. StubHub, Inc., 2015 S.D. 102, ¶ 8 n.1, 873 N.W.2d 497, 499 n.1 (explaining that it is appropriate to be guided by federal court decisions interpreting and applying similar federal rules of civi......
-
Abdulrazzak v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, #28685
...of federal courts can assist our efforts to interpret our corresponding rules. See Nooney v. StubHub, Inc. , 2015 S.D. 102, ¶ 8 n.1, 873 N.W.2d 497, 499 n.1 (observing that federal court interpretations of similar rules are not binding on this Court, but they may be useful for guidance).7 S......
-
Richardson v. Richardson, 27754
...by the notice of review.3 We review a dismissal for failure to state a claim de novo. Nooney v. StubHub, Inc. , 2015 S.D. 102, ¶ 9, 873 N.W.2d 497, 499.4 The grounds for divorce set forth in SDCL 25-4-2 are: adultery, extreme cruelty, willful desertion, willful neglect, habitual intemperanc......
-
State v. Arguello, No. 27351.
...was not fundamental error meriting automatic reversal where the party failed to object and no prejudice or harm was shown).5 See also [873 N.W.2d 497State v. Lopes, 78 Conn.App. 264, 826 A.2d 1238, 1252–53 (2003) (holding that the defendant was not entitled to reversal without a showing of ......
-
Thom v. Barnett, 29546
...requirements for ratification of an action by the real party in interest. See generally Nooney v. StubHub, Inc., 2015 S.D. 102, ¶ 8 n.1, 873 N.W.2d 497, 499 n.1 (explaining that it is appropriate to be guided by federal court decisions interpreting and applying similar federal rules of civi......
-
Abdulrazzak v. S.D. Bd. of Pardons & Paroles, #28685
...of federal courts can assist our efforts to interpret our corresponding rules. See Nooney v. StubHub, Inc. , 2015 S.D. 102, ¶ 8 n.1, 873 N.W.2d 497, 499 n.1 (observing that federal court interpretations of similar rules are not binding on this Court, but they may be useful for guidance).7 S......