Smarter Hoa Solutions Inc. v. Pena

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SMARTER HOA SOLUATIONS INC., Case No.: 3:24-cv-01781-JAH-MMP 12 Plaintiff, ORDER: 13 v. (1) CONSTRUING DEFENDANT’S 14 CARMEN PENA; CASANET MOTION TO DISMISS AS A PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC, 15 MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE Defendants. PLEADINGS AND SETTING A 16 BRIEFING SCHEDULE, (ECF No. 17 20);

18 (2) GRANTING IN PART AND 19 DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY ALL 20 PROCEEDINGS, (ECF No. 23). 21 22 INTRODUCTION 23 Pending before the Court are two motions brought by Defendant Carmen Pena 24 (“Defendant”): (1) a motion to dismiss, and (2) a motion to stay all proceedings until the 25 motion to dismiss is resolved. ECF Nos. 20, 23. Plaintiff Smarter HOA Solutions Inc. 26 (“Plaintiff”) has filed objections to both of Defendant’s filings, requesting the Court to 27 strike both of them. ECF Nos. 22, 24. Defendant was initially represented by counsel in 28 this case, but the Court granted a joint motion to substitute attorney on May 7, 2025, which 1 allowed Defendant to proceed pro se. Defendant filed and signed both pending motions 2 without the assistance of counsel. 3 DISCUSSION 4 In Plaintiff’s objection to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, Plaintiff argues 5 Defendant’s motion (1) fails to follow Local Rules by failing to include a hearing date and 6 time obtained from the Court, (2) the motion was filed while Defendant was still 7 represented by counsel, and (3) the motion was untimely filed six months after Defendant 8 filed an answer to the complaint. ECF No. 22 at 2. 9 As to the first two arguments, the Court is unpersuaded Defendant’s failure to 10 comply with the Local Rules warrants striking his motion in light of the liberal pleading 11 standard afforded to pro se litigants. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (“[a] 12 document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed’”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(f) (“All 13 pleadings shall be so construed as to do substantial justice”). Furthermore, Defendant filed 14 a joint motion to substitute attorney more than two weeks before Defendant filed the 15 motion to dismiss. While true the Court did not grant the substitution until one day after 16 Defendant filed the motion to dismiss, the Court similarly does not find Defendant’s 17 premature filing should preclude hearing Defendant’s motion to dismiss on the merits in 18 light of Defendant’s pro se status. 19 As to the third argument, it is true that motions to dismiss under Federal Rule of 20 Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) “must be made before pleading if a responsive pleading is 21 allowed.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) (emphasis added); see also Elvig v. Calvin Presbyterian 22 Church, 375 F.3d 951, 954 (9th Cir. 2004) (“A Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be made before 23 the responsive pleading”). However, when a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is untimely filed, “a 24 court may deny the motion to dismiss as untimely, or [it] may consider the Rule 12(b)(6) 25 motion to dismiss as a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of 26 Civil Procedure 12(c).” Beery v. Hitachi Home Electronics (Am.), Inc., 157 F.R.D. 477, 27 479 (C.D. Cal. 1993) (citing Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Alla Med. Servs., Inc., 855 F.2d 1470, 28 1 || 1474 (Oth Cir. 1988)). A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be filed “[a]fter the 2 || pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). 3 Considering the Court’s obligation to liberally construe Defendant’s filings, and the 4 interests of justice weighing in favor of considering cases on the merits, the Court finds it 5 ||most prudent to (1) construe Defendant’s motion to dismiss as a motion for judgment on 6 || the pleadings and (2) establish a briefing schedule so Plaintiff has an opportunity to respond 7 ||to Defendant’s motion. 8 CONCLUSION 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 10 1. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 20) will be construed as a motion for 11 judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). A 12 hearing date shall be set for August 27, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. in Courtroom 13B in 13 the James M. Carter and Judith N. Keep Courthouse. 14 2. Plaintiff shall file a response no later than August 6, 2025. 15 3. Defendant may file a reply no later than August 13, 2025. 16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Defendant’s motion to stay all proceedings is 17 || GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. ECF No. 23. All proceedings are to be stayed 18 ||except for the discovery deadlines outlined in paragraph 2 of Judge Pettit’s Order 19 || Following the July 11, 2025, Status and Discovery Conference. ECF No. 32. Specifically, 20 ||} IT IS ORDERED: 21 1. Defendant SHALL respond to the pending Requests for Admission and 22 Interrogatories by July 18, 2025, and to the pending Requests for Production of 23 Documents by July 25, 2025. Failure to do so may result in waiver of objections. 24 2. All other deadlines are stayed pending disposition of Defendant’s motion for 25 judgment on the pleadings. 26 || DATED: July 21, 2025 27 JOHN A. HOUSTON 28 NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE