Source: https://www.sandberglaw.com/articles/winning-without-trial-rule-12c-motions-judgment-pleadings/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:20:35+00:00

Document:
Winning Without Trial: Rule 12(c) Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings - Craig M. Sandberg - Sandberg Law Office, P.C.
Experienced practitioners are familiar with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12, which provides for various pretrial motions to challenge the opposing party’s pleadings and to assert other defenses and objections. If asking attorneys what type of pretrial challenges they consider to be part of their arsenal of motions challenging the adequacy of the pleadings, their response likely would be limited to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, motions to strike, or motions for summary judgment. Rule 12(c) motions—allowing a party to move, after the pleadings are closed, for judgment on the pleadings—are often overlooked. Practitioners, however, should consider and incorporate Rule 12(c) motions into their litigation strategies.
Patrick M. Blanchard is the Chief of the Special Litigation Division of the Cook County State’s Attorney Office in Chicago. Craig M. Sandberg and Mr. Blanchard are Assistant State’s Attorneys assigned to the Civil Actions Bureau where they handle a wide array of litigation on behalf of Cook County and affiliated officers, agencies, and other elected officials in state and federal courts.
There are, however, key differences between a Rule 12(b)(6) and a Rule 12(c) motion. First, Rule 12(c) permits any party to file the motion. While a motion under Rule 12(b)(6) is brought by a party against whom a claim is asserted, a motion under Rule 12(c) may be brought by any party. For example, a plaintiff may bring a Rule 12(c) motion if the defendant’s answer fails to controvert the allegations in the complaint.
For plaintiffs, a Rule 12(c) motion likely will be most useful in instances such as declaratory judgment20 or breach of contract.21 A probable reason for the motion’s effectiveness is that the closed pleadings have a substantial likelihood of containing the entire relevant universe of information necessary to consider the motion. Conversely, a Rule 12(c) motion is of limited utility if the defendant denies any of the claimant’s essential allegations in his or her answer or raises an affirmative defense because that will be sufficient to defeat the motion.
Depending on the nature of the case, judgment on the pleadings is not often available (e.g., antitrust cases where motive and intent are usually at issue).28 However, a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be obtained and should be considered in the following instances: where the statute of limitations precludes recovery by plaintiffs; where there is a statutory or judge-made immunity from the application of a law; and for failure to state a claim, such as inadequate pleading of injury. In these types of cases, a motion for judgment on the pleadings may be used either to press Rule 12(b) defenses to the pleadings’ procedural defects or to seek a substantive disposition of the case on the basis of its underlying merits.
Practitioners must proceed with care in analyzing whether an immediate appeal is ripe from Rule 12(c) motions for judgment on the pleadings. Generally, a decision granting such a motion is considered a “final order” and is immediately appealable, but a decision denying such a motion is ordinarily deemed “interlocutory,” and the parties must await a final disposition on the merits. Exceptions, however, are numerous. For example, denials of motions to dismiss that assert certain types of immunity issues have been deemed immediately appealable under the collateral order doctrine.34 Prior cases mark the line between rulings within the class and those outside. On the immediately appealable side are orders rejecting absolute or qualified immunity. A state actor has the benefit of the collateral order doctrine to appeal a decision denying its claim to Eleventh Amendment immunity, and a criminal defendant may collaterally appeal an adverse ruling on a defense of double jeopardy.35 Also, an appellate court has jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine to review a district court’s order committing a defendant for custodial examination under 18 U.S.C. § 4241 because determinations about the defendant’s mental capacity are separate from the issue of his guilt or innocence.36 In light of the contingent question of appealability from a Rule 12(c) ruling, the issue must be carefully researched within the context of the specific issues presented in the motion.
1. Winning Without Trial, Vol. 14, No. 2 LITIGATION at 5 (Winter 1988).
2. Noel v. Olds, 149 F.2d 13, 15 (D.C. Cir. 1945).
3. T. Thomas Cottingham III & Stephen M. Nickelsburg, Getting to Dismissal: Tactics for Narrowing the Issues and Resolving Your Case, Vol. 28, No. 4 LITIGATION at 43 (Summer 2002).
4. Gregory Wallance, Summary Judgment Ascending, Vol. 14, No. 2 LITIGATION at 6 (Winter 1988).
5. Chudasama v. Mazda Motor Corp., 123 F.3d 1353, 1367 (11th Cir. 1997) (internal citations omitted).
6. Smith v. Shaffer Stores Co., 28 F.R.D. 308, 310–11 (E.D. Pa. 1961).
7. FED. R. CIV. P. 12.
8. FED. R. CIV. P. 12.
9. FED. R. CIV. P. 12.
10. FED. R. CIV. P. 12.
11. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION IN FEDERAL COURTS § 7:35 (Hon. Robert S. Lasnik) (Robert L. Haig ed., West Group & ABA Section of Litigation, 2d ed. 2005).
12. U.S. v. Wood, 925 F.2d 1580, 1582 (7th Cir. 1991).
13. N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows v. City of S. Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 452 (7th Cir. 1998).
14. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION IN FEDERAL COURTS § 7:35 (Hon. Robert S. Lasnik) (Robert L. Haig ed., West Group & ABA Section of Litigation, 2d ed. 2005).
15. Doe v. United States, 419 F.3d 1058, 1061 (9th Cir. 2005).
16. FED. R. CIV. P. 7.
17. FED. R. CIV. P. 10; see R.G. Fin. Corp. v. Vergara-Nunez, 446 F.3d 178, 182 (1st Cir. 2006) (district court may supplement the facts con- tained in the pleadings by considering documents fairly incorporated therein and facts susceptible to judicial notice); see also N. Ind. Gun & Outdoor Shows v. City of S. Bend, 163 F.3d 449, 456 (7th Cir. 1998) (For purposes of Rule 12(c), courts need not accept the probative value of “documents that do not by their nature imply some level of credibili- ty.”).
18. Kathryn R. Urbonya, Interlocutory Appeals from Orders Denying Qualified Immunity: Determining the Proper Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction, 55 WASH. & LEE L. REV. 3, 30–31 (Winter 1998).
19. Mosely v. Bd. of Educ. of the City of Chicago, 434 F.3d 527, 533 (7th Cir. 2006).
20. N.H. Ins. Co. v. Patrick Cadillac Co., 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12911 (N.D. Ill. 1990).
21. Petersen Sand & Gravel, Inc. v. Md. Casualty Co., 881 F. Supp. 309 (N.D. Ill. 2005).
22. FED. R. CIV. P. 12.
23. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION IN FEDERAL COURTS § 7:35 (Hon. Robert S. Lasnik) (Robert L. Haig ed., West Group & ABA Section of Litigation, 2d ed. 2005).
24. Skrtich v. Thornton, 280 F.3d 1295, 1306 (11th Cir. 2002).
25. FED. R. CIV. P. 12.
26. FED. R. CIV. P. 6.
27. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION IN FEDERAL COURTS § 7:35 (Hon. Robert S. Lasnik) (Robert L. Haig ed., West Group & ABA Section of Litigation, 2d ed. 2005).
28. BUSINESS AND COMMERCIAL LITIGATION IN FEDERAL COURTS § 61:76 (John H. Shenefield, Peter E. Halle, and Edward D. Cavanagh) (Robert L. Haig ed., West Group & ABA Section of Litigation, 2d ed. 2005).
29. Fed. Ins. Co. v. Helmar Lutheran Church, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13058, at *7 (N.D. Ill. June 8, 2005).
30. See Republic Steel Corp. v. Pa. Eng’g Corp., 735 F.2d 174, 178 n.2 (7th Cir. 1986).
31. McCann v. Neilsen, 466 F.3d 619, 621 (7th Cir. 2006).
32. Corestates Bank, N.A. v. Huls Am., Inc., 176 F.3d 187, 193 (3d Cir. 1999).
33. George v. N.Y. City Dep’t of City Planning, 436 F.3d 102, 103 (2d Cir. 2006).
34. Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 530 105 S. Ct. 2806 (1995).
35. Will v. Hallock, 126 S. Ct. 952, 958 (2006) (internal citations omitted).
36. United States v. Lapi, 458 F.3d 555, 560 (7th Cir. 2006).
37. Volvo Constr. Equip. N. Am., Inc. v. CLM Equip. Co., 386 F.3d 581, 591 at n9 (4th Cir. 2004).
38. Gregory Wallance, Summary Judgment Ascending, Vol. 14, No. 2 LITIGATION at 6 (Winter 1988).
39. Gregory Wallance, Summary Judgment Ascending, Vol. 14, No. 2 LITIGATION at 6 (Winter 1988).

References: § 4241
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 7
 v. 
 § 7
 § 61
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.