Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05654/USCOURTS-cand-4_09-cv-05654-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

HEATHER LOWE,

Plaintiff,

 v.

EBL&S PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, INC.,

Defendant. /

No. 09-05654 CW

ORDER DENYING

PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION FOR

JUDGMENT ON THE

PLEADINGS

Plaintiff Heather Lowe charges Defendant EBL&S Property

Management, Inc. with unlawful termination due to her pregnancy and

sexual orientation. Plaintiff has filed a motion for partial

judgment on the pleadings attacking some of Defendant’s affirmative

defenses. Defendant opposes the motion. After considering all of

the parties’ papers, the Court denies Plaintiff’s motion. 

BACKGROUND

The following facts are taken from Plaintiff’s First Amended

Complaint (1AC), which contains one and one-half pages of terse

factual allegations, and the exhibits attached thereto. At some

point in 2009, Plaintiff informed Defendant that she was pregnant. 

Plaintiff claims generally that Defendant was “not supportive of

[her] in this unique time of her life” and instead “caused it to be

a period of stress, anxiety, fear and hopelessness.” 1AC ¶ 22. 

Case 4:09-cv-05654-CW Document 26 Filed 06/01/10 Page 1 of 5
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 2

Defendant fired Plaintiff on July 31, 2009. Plaintiff alleges that

Defendant promised to provide her with health insurance benefits

after her termination, but failed to do so. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiff

also alleges that she was improperly classified as a non-exempt

employee and that she was not paid for overtime or provided meal

breaks as required by the California Labor Code. Plaintiff also

asserts that Defendant failed to provide accurate pay stubs and all

wages due upon her termination.

Plaintiff sued Defendant, asserting fifteen claims for relief:

(1) “Breach of Fiduciary Duty under ERISA,” (2) “Violation of ERISA

section 502(a)(3),” (3) “Violation of COBRA and ARRA,”

(4) “Declaratory Relief,” (5) “Failure to Pay Wages in Violation of

California Labor Code §§ 201 and 203,” (6) “Violation of Labor Code

§ 204,” (7) “Unlawful, Unfair and Fraudulent Business Practices in

Violation of B&P Code §§ 17200 and 17203,” (8) “Violation of Labor

Code § 210,” (9) “Violation of Labor Code § 206,” (10) “Breach of

Written Contract,” (11) “Violation of Labor Code 227.3 -- Accrued

Vacation Wages,” (12) “Failure to Provide an Itemized Wage

Statement in Violation of Labor Code § 226,” (13) “Gender

Discrimination in Violation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,” (14) “Violation of the

Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA)” and (15) “Tortious

Discharge in Violation of Public Policy.” Defendant answered the

complaint and asserted twenty affirmative defenses. Plaintiff

seeks judgment on the pleadings on Defendant’s second through

eighth, eleventh through thirteenth, fifteenth through twentieth

and twenty-second affirmative defenses.

Case 4:09-cv-05654-CW Document 26 Filed 06/01/10 Page 2 of 5
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 3

DISCUSSION

Defendant first argues that, because a party can only seek a

“complete” judgment on the pleadings and not a “partial” judgment

on the pleadings, the Court should treat Plaintiff’s motion as a

motion to strike under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) rather

than a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings under Rule

12(c). Defendant further argues that the Court should deny

Plaintiff’s motion because, as a motion to strike, it is not

timely. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) (motion to strike must be made

“either before responding to the pleading or, if a response is not

allowed, within 21 days after being served with the pleading.”). 

Defendant’s argument is not persuasive. “Although Rule 12(c) does

not expressly authorize ‘partial’ judgments, neither does it bar

them, and it is common practice to apply Rule 12(c) to individual

causes of action.” Moran v. Peralta Community College Dist., 825

F. Supp. 891 (N.D. Cal. 1993); see also Strigliabotti v. Franklin

Resources, Inc., 398 F. Supp. 2d 1094, 1097 (N.D. Cal. 2005); Curry

v. Baca, 497 F. Supp. 2d 1128, 1130 (C.D. Cal. 2007); William W

Schwarzer, A. Wallace Tashima & James M. Wagstaff, Federal Civil

Procedure Before Trial § 9:340 (The Rutter Group 2010). 

Plaintiff’s motion is properly before the Court because more than

twenty-one days has passed since Defendant filed its answer. A

motion to strike at this juncture would be inappropriate. 

Rule 12(c) provides, “After the pleadings are closed -- but

early enough not to delay trial -- a party may move for judgment on

the pleadings.” “Judgment on the pleadings is proper when the

moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that

Case 4:09-cv-05654-CW Document 26 Filed 06/01/10 Page 3 of 5
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 4

no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. However, judgment on the

pleadings is improper when the district court goes beyond the

pleadings to resolve an issue; such a proceeding must properly be

treated as a motion for summary judgment.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc.

v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.

1990). When an answer raises issues of fact or an affirmative

defense, which if proved, would defeat recovery, a plaintiff is not

entitled to judgment on the pleadings. General Conference Corp. of

Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational

Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989) (citing 5C Wright & A.

Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1368 (2009).

A defendant need only “state in short and plain terms” its

defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(b); see also Wyshak v. City Nat’l

Bank, 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). A court should strike

defenses only if they are clearly insufficient. See William Z.

Salcer, Panfeld, Edelman v. Envicon Equities Corp., 744 F.2d 935,

939 (2d Cir. 1984); accord Lunsford v. United States, 570 F.2d 221,

229-30 (8th Cir. 1977) (court should deny motion to dismiss a

defense as insufficient as a matter of law if complete development

of the factual record might avoid the need to decide an unresolved

question of law); Augustus v. Bd. of Pub. Instruction of Escambia

County, Fla., 306 F.2d 862, 868 (5th Cir. 1962) (court should grant

motion to strike only if the pleading has no possible relation to

the controversy).

Defendant has adequately stated its defenses, many of which

are apparently plead in an abundance of caution. While some of the

Case 4:09-cv-05654-CW Document 26 Filed 06/01/10 Page 4 of 5
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 5

affirmative defenses are not applicable to some of the causes of

action, and others may not be applicable at all, the Court trusts

that Defendant will not pursue them if it does not discover

evidence to support them. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings

as is denied. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

motion. Docket No. 13. The Court notes that Defendant withdraws

the phrase “Business & Professions Code Section 17208” from its

second affirmative defense, the word “including” from its eleventh

affirmative defense regarding non-jury trials for ERISA claims and

its fifteenth affirmative defense regarding unauthorized unlawful

conduct. Defendant need not file an amended answer. The parties

shall attend the case management conference scheduled for June 3,

2010 at 2:00 p.m. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 06/01/10 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:09-cv-05654-CW Document 26 Filed 06/01/10 Page 5 of 5