Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04029/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-04029-9/pdf.json

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

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS—No.

C-06-04029 RMW

LJP

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

E-FILED on 7/12/07

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

TRACY WATSON, RENEE STALKER,

OLIVIA S., SHAFER W, RILEY W.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, COUNTY OF

SANTA CLARA DEPARTMENT OF

FAMILY AND CHILDREN SERVICES,

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

DEPARTMENT OF COUNTY COUNSEL,

COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DISTRICT

ATTORNEYS OFFICE, SANTA CLARA

VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER,

EVERGREEN SCHOOL DISTRICT, CITY

OF SAN JOSE, SAN JOSE POLICE

DEPARTMENT, NORMA SPARKS,

YAZMINA LETONA, SHARON BURGAN,

JEWELS RAMIREZ, VU TRAN, ANN

MILLER RAVEL, RIMA SINGH, AARON

WEST, GEORGE KENNEDY, CLIFTON

BLACK, ROSE REAL, ROBERT PRUITT,

CHERYL HARMS, CLAUDIA BLODGETT,

GARY KISHIMOTO, JOELLA MOLLOY,

JOHN HAMILTON, ANITA NOBLE, JANET

KAHLE, MARY RITTER, DAVID KEARNS,

RAJUL KAZI, ROB DAVIS, WILLIAM

HOYT, CRAIG BLANK,

Defendants.

No. C-06-04029 RMW

ORDER DENYING VALLEY MEDICAL

CENTER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

[Re Docket No. 66]

Defendants John Hamilton, Anita Noble, Janet Kahle, Mary Ritter, David Kearns, and Rajul

Kazi (collectively "VMC defendants") move for judgment on the pleadings. Plaintiffs oppose the

motion on the merits and on the grounds that it is premature. The court has read the moving and

Case 5:06-cv-04029-RMW Document 101 Filed 07/12/07 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS—No.

C-06-04029 RMW

LJP 2

responding papers and considered the arguments of counsel. For the reasons stated below, the court

DENIES the VMC defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice to it being

renoticed on the submitted papers after all defendants have answered or been dismissed.

Plaintiffs argue that, as a threshold matter, the VMC defendants' motion is premature because

not all defendants have answered the Second Amended Complaint. Rule 12(c) provides that a party

may move for judgment on the pleadings "[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as

not to delay the trial." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). When the pleadings are "closed" is determined by

reference to Rule 7(a), which specifies what pleadings are required under the Federal Rules. See

James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Manual--Federal Practice and Procedure § 16.02. "Thus, unless

the court orders a reply, the pleadings close after the last of the following pleadings in the case has

been filed: the answer, a reply to a counterclaim, an answer to a cross-claim, or a third-party

answer." Id.

Courts confronting the issue have generally accepted the proposition that, where an action

names multiple defendants, the pleadings are not closed until all defendants have answered. See,

e.g., Habeeba's Dance of the Arts, Ltd. v. Knoblauch, 2006 WL 968642 at *2 (S.D. Ohio 2006)

(denying defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings where the other defendant had filed a

motion to dismiss that was pending before the court); Grassmueck v. Barnett, 2003 WL 22128337 at

*3 (W.D. Wash. 2003) (same); Stands Over Bull v. Bureau of Indian Affairs, 442 F. Supp. 360, 367

(D. Mont. 1977) (denying defendants' motion because they had not filed an answer although other

defendants had); see also William W. Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaffe,

California Practice Guide: Federal Civil Procedure Before Trial § 9:324 (2007). However, some

courts, while citing the general rule, have found that they have discretion to allow motions for

judgment on the pleadings in specific situations, even where not all defendants have filed an answer. 

See Johnson v. Dodson Pub. Sch., 463 F. Supp. 2d 1151, 1156 (D. Mont. 2006) (finding defendant's

motion "technically was premature" but allowing it because it concerned a cause of action that

named only that defendant and plaintiffs had not raised a timeliness objection); Noel v. Hall, 2005

WL 2007876 at *1-2 (D. Or. 2005) (allowing defendant's motion where two other defendants had

not answered the complaint for five years and the motion only sought to resolve a legal issue without

Case 5:06-cv-04029-RMW Document 101 Filed 07/12/07 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS—No.

C-06-04029 RMW

LJP 3

dismissing any claims); Moran v. Peralta Cmty. Coll. Dist., 825 F. Supp. 891, 894 (N.D. Cal. 1993)

(allowing defendant's motion where another defendant had yet to be served and thus technically was

not yet a party).

The specific facts in Johnson, Noel, and Moran are unlike the present situation. Plaintiffs

have raised a timeliness objection and further argue that the motion deals with issues that affect

causes of action asserted against other defendants. In addition, all defendants have been served, and

there is currently no risk that the other defendants will not answer the complaint in a timely manner

once their motion to dismiss is resolved. Although the VMC defendants distinguish Stands Over

Bull, they cite no case law in support of the position that their motion should be allowed at the

current stage of proceedings. Thus, the court finds that the VMC defendants' motion is premature

because the pleadings are not closed.

ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the court DENIES the VMC defendants' motion for judgment on

the pleadings without prejudice to it being renoticed on the submitted papers after all defendants

have answered or been dismissed.

DATED: 7/10/07

RONALD M. WHYTE

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-04029-RMW Document 101 Filed 07/12/07 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

ORDER DENYING VALLEY MEDICAL CENTER DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS—No.

C-06-04029 RMW

LJP 4

Notice of this document has been electronically sent to:

Counsel for Plaintiffs:

Peter J. Johnson jjlaw2@earthlink.net 

Counsel for Defendants:

Jacquelyn Kimmet Wilson jkw@swr-law.com 

Clifford S. Greenberg cao.main@ci.sj.ca.us 

Melissa R. Kiniyalocts melissa.kiniyalocts@cco.co.scl.ca.us 

Counsel are responsible for distributing copies of this document to co-counsel that have not

registered for e-filing under the court's CM/ECF program.

Dated: 7/12/07 SPT

Chambers of Judge Whyte

Case 5:06-cv-04029-RMW Document 101 Filed 07/12/07 Page 4 of 4