PER CURIAM.
By petition for rehearing, Appellees Stewart Title Guaranty Company, Inc, Chicago Title Insurance Company, Inc., and First American Title Insurance Company, Inc. ask us to clarify our opinion in Speights v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 17, 2004). The appeal in Speights arose after the trial court granted the appellees' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. The trial court committed reversible error when it held that the Committee on the Unauthorized Practice of Law (CUPL) had exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over the unauthorized-practice-of-law claims stated in the appellants' complaint. American Abstract Title Company v. Rice, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (June 17, 2004). We now write to clarify that motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under ARK. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6)(2004) may be resolved by a trial court prior to class certification.
Following the reasoning in the Supreme Court's holding in Eisen v. Carlisle Jacquelin, 417 U.S. 156, 177-78 (1974), this court has previously held that a trial court may not delve into the merits of the case in determining if the elements of Rule 23 of the Arkansas Rules of Civil Procedure have been satisfied. Fraley v. Williams Ford Tractor Equip. Co., 339 Ark. 322, 335, 5 S.W.3d 423, 431 (1999). In our original Speights opinion, we held that a court may not delve into the merits at any time in an ARK. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) motion prior to class certification.
This appeal arises out of the trial court's improper resolution of the Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Dismissal of a complaint under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is only proper where the complaint fails to allege specific facts upon which relief could be granted. Ark. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). It is improper for the trial court to look beyond the complaint in order to decide the motion to dismiss. Guthrie v. Tyson, 285 Ark. 95, 96, 685 S.W.2d 164, 165 (Ark. 1985). When reviewing the complaint for purposes of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court must treat the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Clayborn v. Bankers Standard Ins. Co., 348 Ark. 557,561, 75 S.W.3d 174, 176 (2004).
As a proper resolution of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not involve a trial court's consideration of the merits of a case, nothing in this opinion should be read to limit the use of such motions prior to class certification. Consideration of Rule 12(b)(6) motions before certification promotes efficiency and judicial economy by allowing for quick and early disposal of cases where the plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. James Wm. Moore Et Al., MANUAL FOR COMPLEX LITIGATION § 21.133 (4th ed. 2004). Moreover, as a precertification Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal is only binding on the named parties and does not reflect a determination on the merits, these dismissals are less likely to unfairly prejudice either the unnamed members of the potential class or the defendants to the action. Because the resolution of Rule 12(b)(6) motions promotes the administration of justice and will not unfairly prejudice any of the parties to the action, we hold such actions to be appropriate prior to class certification.
In the present case, the trial court listed seven alternative grounds under Rule 12(b)(6) for dismissal of the appellants' amended complaint. We conclude that the alternative grounds for dismissal were based on the trial court's improper weighing of the merits of the appellants' claims.
Petition for rehearing denied.
THORNTON, J., concurs.