JOHNSON
v.
THE PRESERVES AT STONEBRIAR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is inappropriate before an answer has been filed, and a motion to dismiss failed to comply with local conferral rules.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint, and Defendant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissal without answering the complaint. Defend…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Local Rule 3.01(G) Conferral Requirement cases and more on FLexlaw
(Doc. No. 20)
FILED: April 3, 2024
THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Plaintiff Sherma Johnson, appearing pro se, instituted this action against Defendant The Preserves at Stonebriar Homeowners Association, Inc. by complaint filed on August 18, 2023. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff's operative pleading is her amended complaint, filed on November 13, 2023. Doc. No. 8. [fn 1]
Defendant has not answered the amended complaint. Instead, on April 3, 2024, Defendant filed the above-styled motion seeking judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), and dismissal of the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 20. According to the motion, conferral with Plaintiff prior to filing was not required due to the nature of the motion. Id. at 21; see Local Rule 3.01(g) (excluding motions for judgment on the pleadings from its application). Plaintiff has responded in opposition. Doc. No. 21. [fn 2]
On November 13, 2024, Defendant's motion was referred to the undersigned. On review, however, the motion (Doc. No. 20) is due to be denied without prejudice.
Specifically, the motion is styled as one for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. No. 20. However, Defendant has not yet answered the amended complaint. "When only a single pleading has been filed, 'competing pleadings' do not exist, so a motion for judgment on the pleadings is not appropriate." Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F. 3d 1329, 1336 (11th Cir. 2014); see also Lillian B. ex rel. Brown v. Gwinnett Cty. Sch. Dist., 631 F. App'x 851, 853 (11th Cir. 2015) ("By the plain language of Rule 12(c), a party may not move for judgment on the pleadings until '[a]fter the pleadings are closed.' The pleadings are closed only when a complaint and answer have been filed." (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a))). [fn 3]
Given that Defendant does not appropriately seek relief under Rule 12(c), the Court considers the motion only as it relates to Defendant's arguments under Rule 12(b)(6). However, in this regard, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule 3.01(g) because Defendant did not confer with Plaintiff prior to filing the motion. See Doc. No. 20, at 21; see also Local Rule 3.01(g) (excluding motions for judgment on the pleadings, but not motions to dismiss, from its application).
Accordingly, for these reasons, Defendant's motion (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED without prejudice. Defendant may file a renewed motion to dismiss within
fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, in full compliance with all applicable Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. Alternatively, on or before this same deadline, Defendant shall answer the amended complaint (Doc. No. 8).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 19, 2024.
islistan Price
LESLIE HOFFMAN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
[fn 1]: Plaintiff's initial complaint was dismissed pursuant to review under 28 U.S.C. § 1915. Doc. No. 7; see also Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff paid the filing fee upon filing the amended complaint. Doc. No. 8.
[fn 2]: On September 11, 2024, while the motion was still pending, the case was dismissed for failure to comply with Court Orders, but the case was ultimately reopened. Doc. Nos. 32, 35. A Case Management and Scheduling Order issued September 30, 2024. Doc. No. 36.
[fn 3]: Unpublished opinions of the Eleventh Circuit are cited as persuasive authority. See 11th Cir. R. 36-2.