On September 6, 2012, this Honorable Court deemed Plaintiffs’ separatemotion for a Preliminary Injunction moot. On June 28, 2013, the Court’s deadlinefor adding parties expired.
Rule 16 Scheduling Order (Dkt # 31), p. 2, ¶ 5.On October 23, 2012, Defendants LUM and the City filed the instant motionseeking judgment on the pleadings with respect to the claims against LUM in hisofficial capacity, the claims against JOHN DOES 1-10 and any claim seekinginjunctive relief.
UDGMENT ON THE
This motion is governed by Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of CivilProcedure, which states as follows:
(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings:
After the pleadings areclosed but within such time as not to delay the trial, any party maymove for judgment on the pleadings. If, on motion for judgment onthe pleadings, matters outside the pleadings are presented to and notexcluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinentto such a motion by Rule 56.Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c) (2000).In Pahk v. Hawaii, 109 F. Supp. 2d 1262 (Haw. 2000), this court stated:
The standard governing a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings isessentially the same as that governing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Lake TahoeWatercraft Rec. Ass’n v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 24 F. Supp.2d 1062,1066 (E.D. Cal. 1998).
Saiki v. LaSalle Bank Nat’l Assn., not reported in
Case 1:12-cv-00469-JMS-RLP Document 36-1 Filed 10/23/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID #:245