Kennedy v. Mohave, County of et al

Filing 162

ORDER that Defendants' 161 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is denied. Signed by Judge Steven P Logan on 8/02/2021. (ESG)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

Kimberly Kennedy, et al.,

9
10

Plaintiffs,
vs.

11
12
13
14

Mohave County, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV-17-08206-PHX-SPL
ORDER

15

Before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. 161).

16

On January 7, 2020, Defendants file a Motion to Dismiss Count One of Plaintiff’s

17

Complaint for failure to state a claim (Doc. 115). On June 18, 2020, the Court denied the

18

Motion because it was filed a year and a half after Defendants filed their Answer and was

19

therefore untimely pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). (Doc. 137 at 2).

20

Defendants now essentially seek reconsideration, arguing their Motion “should have been

21

converted to (considered to be) a motion for judgment on the pleadings instead of being

22

denied for untimeliness” and rearguing the merits of the Motion. (Doc. 161 at 1).

23

Trial in this case is schedule to begin tomorrow, August 3, 2021. Defendants waited

24

until almost 14 months after the Court’s Order denying their Motion, and until the day

25

before trial, to object to the Order. The instant Motion is essentially a motion for

26

reconsideration which must be denied as untimely because, per Local Rule 7.2(g), motions

27

for reconsideration “shall be filed no later than fourteen (14) days after the date of the filing

28

of the Order that is the subject of the motion.” Further, even if the Court considered the

1

Motion to be a true motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court must deny the Motion

2

because it would unquestionably delay trial. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) permits

3

that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may

4

move for judgment on the pleadings.” Under Local Rule 7.2(c), a party may respond within

5

fourteen days to a motion for judgment on the pleadings. Because trial is scheduled to begin

6

tomorrow, the motion will not even be ripe for this Court’s review until after the trial is

7

expected to conclude. See, e.g., Riggins v. Walter, 279 F.3d 422, 427 (7th Cir. 1995)

8

(affirming denial of a motion for judgment on the pleadings as untimely when filed “[m]ore

9

than twenty-six months after the close of pleadings, twenty months after the dispositive

10
11
12
13

motions deadline and two weeks after the final pretrial order”). Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
161) is denied.
Dated this 2nd day of August, 2021.

14
15

Honorable Steven P. Logan
United States District Judge

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2