McFerrin v. Khan
6:15-cv-00100
D. Mont.Sep 1, 2016Background
- Plaintiffs (Carmen L. McFerrin, individually and as personal representative of Gregory B. McFerrin) sued multiple defendants, including Grewal Trans, Inc., asserting various theories in a Third Amended Complaint filed August 9, 2016.
- Grewal moved for judgment on the pleadings under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) on July 15, 2016.
- Plaintiffs opposed the motion on August 5, 2016.
- The court recited the Rule 12(c) standard: the court must accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true and draw reasonable inferences for the plaintiff; judgment on the pleadings is appropriate only if the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
- The case was at an early stage: pleading amendment deadline was September 16, 2016; discovery closed March 31, 2017; pretrial motions due June 2, 2017.
- The court declined to resolve merits or potential double-recovery issues now, finding such resolution premature before discovery and dispositive motion practice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is appropriate | Complaints state viable claims that survive a 12(c) challenge | Grewal contended the pleadings warrant dismissal/judgment in its favor | Denied — 12(c) inappropriate at this early stage; facts and inferences construed for plaintiffs |
| Whether Rule 12(d) conversion to summary judgment applies | Not argued as applicable | Grewal relied on Rule 12(c); Rule 12(d) not implicated | Court found Rule 12(d) not implicated |
| Whether court should resolve potential double-recovery or merits issues now | Plaintiffs opposed early resolution; discovery needed | Grewal sought dismissal on pleadings, implying some issues ripe | Court held resolution of such issues is premature pending discovery |
| Standard of review for 12(c) | 12(c) should be judged like a 12(b)(6) motion; accept pleaded facts | Grewal argued entitlement to judgment as matter of law | Court applied the established 12(c)/12(b)(6) standard in plaintiffs’ favor for now |
Key Cases Cited
- Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69 (1984) (discusses standards for judgment on the pleadings and motions attacking the sufficiency of pleadings)
- Milne ex rel. Coyne v. Stephen Slesinger, Inc., 430 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2005) (judgment on the pleadings proper only if moving party entitled to judgment as a matter of law)
- Owens v. Kaiser Found. Health Plan, Inc., 244 F.3d 708 (9th Cir. 2001) (standards for dismissal and treatment of factual allegations on motions to dismiss/12(c))
- Gen. Constr. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228 (9th Cir. 1989) (pleadings’ factual allegations must be construed in favor of the nonmoving party)