Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Myron James Lorenz (author)
Analysis
Defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), but the Court denied the motion as moot because Plaintiffs had already filed an amended complaint. The Court noted that Rule 12(c) motions are subject to the same standard as Rule 12(b)(6) motions but did not reach the merits of the claims.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings denied as moot“Accordingly, the Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is denied as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the filing of an amended complaint renders a pending Rule 12(c) motion moot, as the motion challenges the sufficiency of the original complaint which is no longer the operative pleading. The citation to Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino supports the procedural posture that such motions are denied as moot upon amendment. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally correct. It accurately states the legal standard for Rule 12(c) motions and correctly applies the mootness doctrine based on the filing of the amended complaint. The reasoning is concise and directly addresses the procedural status of the motion.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAGNER AERONAUTICAL, INC.; Case No.: 21cv0994-L-AGS 12 MAMMOTH FREIGHTERS LLC; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 WILLIAM WAGNER; and WILLIAM PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS MOOT 14 TARPLEY, 15 [ECF NO. 96] 16 Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 19 DAVID DOTZENROTH; SEQUOIA 20 AIRCRAFT CONVERSIONS, LLC; CAI 21 CONSULTING LTD; CHARLES WILEY 22 DOTZENROTH; ANDREW MANSELL; 23 STEVEN WELO; and DOES 1 through 24 50 inclusive, 25 Defendants 26 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the 27 Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). [ECF No. 96.] Plaintiff 28 1 || timely filed an amended complaint [ECF No. 132]. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)(B). 2 || "Rule 12(c) is functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6) and ... the same standard of review 3 || applies to motions brought under either rule.” See United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen 4 || Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 5 || marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the Motion for Partial Judgment on the 6 || Pleadings is denied as moot. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 7 || 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 ||Dated: January 7, 2022 fee oop 12 H . James Lorenz, 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28