Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02629/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-02629-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Jennifer Marie Jones, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Town of Quartzsite; Jeffrey Gilbert and

Sondra Gilbert, husband and wife; Officer

Rick Paterson; Officer Xavier Frausto; and

Terry Frausto, husband and wife; and

Denise Ann Florian, an adult female,

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-12-2629-PHX-LOA

ORDER

On January 14, 2014, Defendants filed a Motion for Judgment On The Pleadings

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Fed.R.Civ.P.”) 12(c). (Doc. 45) Defendants

move for judgment on the pleadings, alleging 1) the Complaint fails to allege sufficient facts

to plausibly support federal claims under the First and Fourth Amendments; 2) the Complaint

fails to state a state claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress and is time-barred by

the one-year statute of limitations; 3) the Complaint fails to state a state a § 1983 claim

against Defendant Denise Ann Florian because it fails to allege facts that she acted under

color of law; and 4) Defendants Gilbert, Paterson, and Frausto are entitled to qualified

immunity. (Id. at 1-2)

I. Certificate of Conferral

Defendants’ motion fails to comply with the Court’s May 17, 2013 Order, which

requires a verified certification of conferral prior to filing a Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 12(c),

Case 2:12-cv-02629-LOA Document 48 Filed 02/24/14 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Fed.R.Civ.P., indicating that Defendants’ counsel has conferred, or attempted to confer, with

Plaintiff’s counsel to determine whether an agreement to amend the Complaint would cure

any pleading deficiencies, but they have been unable to so agree. (Doc. 23 at 2-3) This

certification is required as a condition to filing a Rule 12(b)(6) and 12(c) motion for two

reasons. Rule 15(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., mandates that leave to amend should be “freely

give[n]” when justice so requires and “[t]he Ninth Circuit has instructed district courts to

grant leave to amend, sua sponte, when dismissing a case for failure to state a claim, ‘unless

the court determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegations of other

facts.’” Schrock v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 2011 WL 3348227, at *9 (D. Ariz. Aug. 3,

2011) (quoting Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting Doe v. United

States, 58 F.3d 494, 497 (9th Cir. 1995)). There is a “longstanding rule that ‘[l]eave to amend

should be granted if it appears at all possible that the plaintiff can correct the defect.’” Id. at

1129 (quoting Balistreri v. Pac. Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 701 (9th Cir. 1990)). This is

especially true if the deficient pleading was filed by a pro se litigant as in this case. See

Marinov v. Federal Nat. Mortg. Ass’n, 2012 WL 136003, at *3 (D. Ariz. Jan. 18, 2012).

In the District Court of Arizona, several Phoenix judges include a certification-ofconferral order as a standard order early in the litigation requiring the parties to confer prior

to the filing of a motion to dismiss to determine whether such a motion can be avoided. See

Monje v. Spin Master Inc., 2013 WL 2390625, at *11 (D. Ariz. May 30, 2013). Motions to

dismiss that do not contain the required certification are subject to be stricken on the Court’s

own motion. See, e.g., Spiker v. Sanjivan PLLC, 2013 WL 5200209, at *2 (D. Ariz. Sept. 16,

2013). 

II. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c)

“Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when there is no issue of material

fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fleming v.

Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (citation omitted). A Rule 12(c) motion is

properly filed “[a]fter the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to delay trial--a party

may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c)). A district court has

Case 2:12-cv-02629-LOA Document 48 Filed 02/24/14 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 The Court opines that the standard enunciated in Hal Roach Studios v. Richard

Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir. 1990) is outdated because it preceded the

Supreme Court’s decisions in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007), and

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009). Twombly abrogated Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41

(1957).

- 3 -

discretion to deny a Rule 12(c) motion after excessive delay. See Argo v. Woods, 399

Fed.Appx. 1 (5th Cir. 2010) (citing 5A Charles A. Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal

Practice and Procedure § 1367, at 514 (1990) (“Ordinarily, a motion for judgment on the

pleadings should be made promptly after the close of the pleadings. . . .”); Grajales v. Puerto

Rico Ports Authority, 682 F.3d 40, 46 (1st Cir. 2012) (district courts enjoy broad discretion,

but court should hesitate to entertain Rule 12(c) motion once parties have invested substantial

resources in discovery). 

For purposes of a motion under Rule 12(c), a district court must accept a complaint’s

well-pleaded allegations as true, and construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the

nonmoving party, but will not accept unsupported conclusory statements. DiCarlo v. St.

Mary Hospital, 530 F.3d 255, 262-63 (3d Cir. 2008) (citation omitted); Barany-Snyder v.

Weiner, 539 F.3d 327, 332 (6th Cir. 2008).1

 A motion for judgment on the pleadings is

generally evaluated under the same legal standard as a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule

12(b)(6). Lopez Reyes v. Kenosian & Miele, LLP, 525 F.Supp.2d 1158, 1160 (N.D. Cal.

2007). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is proper when a complaint is based on the

lack of a cognizable legal theory or there are insufficient facts alleged under a cognizable

legal theory. See Balistreri, 901 F.2d at 699. Although materials outside of the pleadings

should not be considered, a district court may consider all materials properly submitted as

part of the complaint, such as exhibits. See Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1555 n. 19. If

“matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court,” a Rule 12(c)

motion must be treated as a summary judgment motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d).

III. Discussion

The Court’s September 4, 2013 case management order set a November 1, 2013

deadline for amending pleadings in this case. (Doc. 40 at 6) It is troubling that Defendants

Case 2:12-cv-02629-LOA Document 48 Filed 02/24/14 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

waited to file their motion until January 14, 2014, which is over eight months after

Defendants filed their Answer and two months after the pleading amendment deadline,

especially considering the Court raised the issue sua sponte whether Plaintiff’s pro se

Complaint alleged sufficient facts to state claims at the September 3, 2013 case management

conference. (Doc. 40 at 4-5) The excessive delay and timing of the motion suggests

Defendants strategically waited to file the motion until after the amendment deadline to make

it more difficult for Plaintiff to cure any factual pleading deficiencies by amendment.

Because Defendants’ motion does not contain a certificate of conferral and was not

promptly filed, and Defendants excessively delayed filing the motion until after the

amendment deadline had passed, the motion will be denied without prejudice.

Based on the foregoing,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, doc. 45,

is DENIED without prejudice. Defendants may re-raise the issues in a summary judgment

motion pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.R.Civ.P., at anytime before the July 18, 2014 dispositive

deadline.

DATED this 24th day of February, 2014.

Case 2:12-cv-02629-LOA Document 48 Filed 02/24/14 Page 4 of 4