Alexander v. School District of Charlotte County, Florida
Filing
39
OPINION AND ORDER denying 14 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge John E. Steele on 9/11/2013. (MAB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
FORT MYERS DIVISION
ANN ALEXANDER,
Plaintiff,
vs.
Case No.
2:12-cv-664-FtM-29UAM
SCHOOL DISTRICT OF CHARLOTTE COUNTY,
FLORIDA,
Defendant.
___________________________________
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. #14) filed on March 13,
2013.
Defendant filed a Response (Doc. #18) on March 18, 2013.
I.
On December 11, 2012, plaintiff Ann Alexander (plaintiff)
filed a Complaint (Doc. #1) asserting claims based on racial and/or
national origin discrimination, harassment, and retaliation against
the School District of Charlotte County (defendant) pursuant to
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Florida Civil
Rights Act (FCRA) of 1992. Defendant responded to the Complaint by
filing an Answer (Doc. #11) on January 16, 2013.
Plaintiff now
moves for a partial judgment on the pleadings.
II.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provide that “[a]fter the
pleadings are closed--but early enough not to delay trial--a party
may move for judgment on the pleadings.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c).
“Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate where there are no
material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.”
Riccard v. Prudential Ins. Co. of
Am., 307 F.3d 1277, 1291 (11th Cir. 2002) (quoting Cannon v. City
of West Palm Beach, 250 F.3d 1299, 1301 (11th Cir. 2001)).
When
reviewing a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the court must
view the facts in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party.
Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir.
1998).
A judgment on the pleadings can be granted only if the
nonmoving party can prove no set of facts which would allow it to
prevail.
Palmer & Cay, Inc. v. Marsh & Mclennan Cos., Inc., 404
F.3d 1297, 1303 (11th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
III.
Plaintiff contends that the Court should enter a partial
judgment on the pleadings regarding the following factual and
procedural elements of her claims: (1) plaintiff worked for an
employer covered by Title VII and the FCRA; (2) plaintiff is a
member of a protected class; (3) plaintiff engaged in activities
protected by law; (4) plaintiff suffered one or more adverse
employment actions; (5) plaintiff exhausted all administrative
prerequisites to filing suit; and (6) plaintiff’s claims are timely
filed. (Doc. #14, pp. 7-8.) Defendant opposes the motion, arguing
that the
motion
is
improper
judgment as to any claim.
because plaintiff
does
not seek
Defendant also contends that the
-2-
specific matters it admitted to have already been established.
(Doc. #18, p. 2.)
The Court agrees with defendant.
A motion for a judgment on the pleadings is designed to
dispose of a case or claims where the material facts are not in
dispute and a judgment on the merits can be entered based on the
substance of the pleadings.
Here, plaintiff is merely attempting
to conclusively establish the non-contested elements of her claims
to “significantly narrow the issues which remain to be litigated in
this case.”
(Doc. #14, p. 17.)
Defendant correctly asserts that
the admitted facts have already been established, and it is neither
necessary nor desirable to obtain a “judgment” acknowledging such
admissions.
Because
a
judgment
would
simply
acknowledge
established facts and would not dispose of any claims in this case,
plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings is denied.
Accordingly, it is now
ORDERED:
Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc.
#14) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED at Fort Myers, Florida, this
September, 2013.
Copies:
Counsel of record
-3-
11th
day of
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?