Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01874/USCOURTS-caed-2_15-cv-01874-2/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Michael David LLC
Counter Defendant
Oak Ridge Winery LLC
Counter Claimant

Document Text:

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 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

----oo0oo---- 

MICHAEL DAVID LLC, a 

California limited liability 

company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

OAK RIDGE WINERY LLC, a 

California limited liability 

company, 

Defendant. 

CIV. NO. 2:15-01874 WBS AC 

ORDER RE: CROSS-MOTIONS FOR 

JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS 

AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIMS. 

----oo0oo---- 

 Presently before the court is defendant Oak Ridge 

Winery LLC’s motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect to 

its unclean hands and non-incontestability counterclaims, (Docket 

No. 15), and plaintiff Michael David LLC’s cross-motion for 

judgment on the pleadings on defendant’s unclean hands, nonCase 2:15-cv-01874-WBS-AC Document 29 Filed 03/24/16 Page 1 of 3
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 

incontestability, and fraud counterclaims, (Docket No. 18), 

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). 

 “After 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). In deciding a motion for judgment on the 

pleadings, the court must accept all factual allegations in the 

complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable 

to the non-moving party. Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 

(9th Cir. 2009). Judgment on the pleadings is “proper when the 

moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings 

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

is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Hal Roach Studios, 

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

Cir. 1990). 

 The court may consider only the pleadings, matters 

incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of 

judicial notice. Kaur v. Citibank, N.A., Civ. No. 1:13-01610 

AWI, 2014 WL 3756136, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 30, 2014). 

“[J]udgment 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, 896 F.2d at 1550. 

 A judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) is more 

severe than an order of dismissal for failure to state a claim 

under Rule 12(b)(6), because unlike the latter, the former 

results in a judgment which does not allow for amendment under 

Rule 15(a). Because the court cannot finally resolve the merits 

of defendant’s counterclaims on the present record, neither party 

Case 2:15-cv-01874-WBS-AC Document 29 Filed 03/24/16 Page 2 of 3
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 

has met the standard for judgment on the pleadings on those 

counterclaims. 

 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s motion for 

judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 15) and plaintiff’s crossmotion for judgment on the pleadings (Docket No. 18) be, and the 

same hereby are, DENIED. 

Dated: March 24, 2016 

 

 

 

Case 2:15-cv-01874-WBS-AC Document 29 Filed 03/24/16 Page 3 of 3