Facts
- Plaintiff Sherma Johnson filed a pro se complaint against The Preserves at Stonebriar Homeowners Association on August 18, 2023, later amended on November 13, 2023 [lines="46-50"].
- The defendant did not answer the amended complaint and instead filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and to dismiss the amended complaint on April 3, 2024 [lines="57-61"].
- The motion was filed without prior conferral with the plaintiff, citing the nature of the motion as justification [lines="64-66"].
- The court reviewed the motion and found it inadequate for a judgment on the pleadings due to the defendant's failure to answer the amended complaint [lines="78-84"].
- The court denied the defendant's motion without prejudice, allowing for a renewed motion or an answer to the amended complaint [lines="115-120"].
Issues
- Whether the defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings was appropriate given that he had not answered the amended complaint [lines="85-86"].
- Whether the defendant failed to comply with the local rules requiring conferral prior to filing a motion to dismiss [lines="103-104"].
Holdings
- The court ruled that a motion for judgment on the pleadings was not appropriate, as there were not competing pleadings due to the absence of an answer from the defendant [lines="100-102"].
- The court held that the motion did not comply with local rules because the defendant failed to confer with the plaintiff before filing the motion [lines="103-111"].
OPINION
Case Information
*1 U NITED S TATES D ISTRICT C OURT
M IDDLE D ISTRICT O F F LORIDA O RLANDO D IVISION SHERMA JOHNSON, Plaintiff, v. Case No: 6:23-cv-1585-CEM-LHP THE PRESERVES AT STONEBRIAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC. and DOES 1-10,
Defendants O RDER This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following motion filed herein: MOTION: DEFENDANT, THE PRESERVE AT STONEBRIAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC’S, MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 20)
FILED: April 3, 2024 THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice . *2
Plaintiff Sherma Johnson, appearing pro se , instituted this action against
Defendant The Preserves at Stonebriar Homeowners Association, Inc. by complaint filed on August 18, 2023. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff’s operative pleading is her amended complaint, filed on November 13, 2023. Doc. No. 8. [1]
Defendant has not answered the amended complaint. Instead, on April 3, 2024, Defendant filed the above-styled motion seeking judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), and dismissal of the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 20. According to the motion, conferral with Plaintiff prior to filing was not required due to the nature of the motion. Id. at 21; see Local Rule 3.01(g) (excluding motions for judgment on the pleadings from its application). Plaintiff has responded in opposition. Doc. No. 21. [2]
On November 13, 2024, Defendant’s motion was referred to the undersigned. On review, however, the motion (Doc. No. 20) is due to be denied without prejudice. *3 Specifically, the motion is styled as one for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. No. 20. However, Defendant has not yet answered the amended complaint. “When only a single pleading has been filed, ‘competing pleadings’ do not exist, so a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not appropriate.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A. , 774 F.3d 1329, 1336 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Lillian B. ex rel. Brown v. Gwinnett Cty. Sch. Dist. , 631 F. App’x 851, 853 (11th Cir. 2015) (“By the plain language of Rule 12(c), a party may not move for judgment on the pleadings until ‘[a]fter the pleadings are closed.’ The pleadings are closed only when a complaint and answer have been filed.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a))). [3]
Given that Defendant does not appropriately seek relief under Rule 12(c), the Court considers the motion only as it relates to Defendant’s arguments under Rule 12(b)(6). However, in this regard, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) because Defendant did not confer with Plaintiff prior to filing the motion. See Doc. No. 20, at 21; see also Local Rule 3.01(g) (excluding motions for judgment on the pleadings, but not motions to dismiss, from its application).
Accordingly, for these reasons, Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice . Defendant may file a renewed motion to dismiss within *4 fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, in full compliance with all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. Alternatively, on or before this same deadline , Defendant shall answer the amended complaint (Doc. No. 8).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 19, 2024. Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
NOTES
[1] Plaintiff’s initial complaint was dismissed pursuant to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. No. 7; see also Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff paid the filing fee upon filing the amended complaint. Doc. No. 8.
[2] On September 11, 2024, while the motion was still pending, the case was dismissed for failure to comply with Court Orders, but the case was ultimately reopened. Doc. Nos. 32, 35. A Case Management and Scheduling Order issued September 30, 2024. Doc. No. 36.
[3] Unpublished opinions of the Eleventh Circuit are cited as persuasive authority. See 11th Cir. R. 36–2.