to relief.’ ” Bethel v. Mount Anthony Union High Sch. Dist., 173 Vt. 633, 634, 795 A.2d 1215, 1217 (2002) (mem.) (quoting Amiot v. Ames, 166 Vt. 288, 291, 693 A.2d 675, 677 (1997)). In reviewing the disposition of such a motion, “this Court assumes that all well pleaded factual allegations in the complaint are true, as well as all reasonable inferences that may be derived therefrom.” Id. The question on review is whether the bare allegations of the complaint are sufficient to state a claim, and “[sjince averments of time and place are material for testing the sufficiency of a complaint, defenses based on a failure to comply with the applicable statute of limitations are properly raised in a motion to dismiss.” Id.; accord Fortier v. Byrnes, 165 Vt. 189, 193, 678 A.2d 890, 892 (1996) (<HOLDING>). There is no dispute here that plaintiffs’
holding that a district court has the authority to raise the aedpa statute of limitations on its own motion recognizing fraud in the inducement as defense under federal common law interpreting erisa holding that consistent with federal authority interpreting the identical federal rule the defendant could properly raise the limitations defense in a motion to dismiss holding that a statute of limitations defense first raised in a motion to dismiss at the close of the plaintiffs evidence was untimely holding that a defendant who fails to raise statute of limitations defense in a pretrial motion to dismiss or by requesting a jury instruction on limitations if there is some evidence that the prosecution is limitationsbarred waives that defense