Smith et al v. Housing Authority of South Bend et al
Filing
67
OPINION AND ORDER denying 58 Motion for Partial Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Rudy Lozano on 11/9/12. (smp)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
SOUTH BEND DIVISION
WILLIAM SMITH AND
LUBIRTA SMITH,
PlaintiffS,
vs.
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF
SOUTH BEND,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CAUSE NO. 3:09-CV-330
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Plaintiffs William and
Lubirta Smith, on April 26, 2012.
(DE #58.)
For the reasons set
forth below, this motion is DENIED.
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2009, the Plaintiffs, William Smith and Lubirta
Smith (collectively, the “Smiths”), filed their Verified Complaint
With Jury Demand. The original Complaint named numerous defendants
including
the
Housing
Authority
of
South
Bend
(the
“HASB”).
Motions to dismiss were filed by the various defendants, and on
September 30, 2010, this Court issued an order granting those
motions.
However, the Court granted the Smiths leave to amend
their Complaint to clarify their cause of action.
On November 15,
2010, the Smiths timely filed an Amended Complaint, naming only the
HASB as a defendant.
to dismiss.
In lieu of an answer, the HASB filed a motion
On March 30, 2012, the Court granted in part and
denied in part the motion to dismiss, dismissing various claims but
concluding that the Smiths had alleged sufficient facts pertaining
to Disability Based Fair Housing, Rehabilitation Act, Americans
with Disabilities Act, Habitability, and Third Party Beneficiary
causes of action to proceed on those specific claims.
The HASB then filed an Answer, asserting several affirmative
defenses. For its second affirmative defense, the HASB stated that
the Smiths “in whole or in part, fail to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted as a matter of law.”
The Smiths responded by
filing the instant motion for partial judgment on the pleadings,
“request[ing] a ruling that, as a matter a law, this Court’s
opinion . . . has determined, as law of the case, that they state
claims on what the Court described as the ‘Disability Based Fair
Housing, Rehabilitation Act, Americans with Disabilities Act,
Habitability, and Third Party Beneficiary claims.”
The HASB has
filed its response, and the Smiths have filed a reply.
The motion
is now ripe for adjudication.
DISCUSSION
Once a complaint and answer have been filed, a party may file
a motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of
-2-
Civil Procedure 12(c).
Moss v. Martin, 473 F.3d 694, 698 (7th Cir.
2007) (citing Brunt v. Serv. Employees Int'l Union, 284 F.3d 715,
718 (7th Cir. 2002)).
“Only when it appears beyond a doubt that
the plaintiff cannot prove any facts to support a claim for relief
and the moving party demonstrates that there are no material issues
of fact to be resolved will a court grant a Rule 12(c) motion.”
Id. (citations omitted).
Here, although the Smiths have filed their motion under Rule
12(c), they are not looking for a “judgment” per se but rather a
declaration or advisory opinion from the Court stating that any
future attempts to dismiss the remaining claims would be futile.
They wish to use their Rule 12(c) motion procedurally as a shield,
rather than as a sword.
The Court finds that, based on the current
facts and position of the case, this is not the proper use of a
Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings.
While the Smiths are correct in pointing out that the Court
found in its previous order that certain claims “remain pending,”
the Court did not decide the merits of those claims.
Instead, the
Court simply found that the claims as stated are plausible after
giving the Smiths the benefits of reasonable inferences to which
they are entitled at this early stage of the litigation.
The Smiths’ repeated references to the law of the case
doctrine do not help their argument. “The law of the case doctrine
is a rule of practice which recite[s] that when an issue is once
-3-
litigated and decided, that should be the end of the matter.”
Analytical Engineering, Inc. v. Baldwin Filters, Inc., 425 F.3d
443, 454 (7th Cir. 2005) (citations omitted).
However, it is a
flexible, discretionary doctrine and “does not put a limit on the
district court's power to reopen what has been already decided.
Id.; see also Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 680 F.2d 527, 532 (7th
Cir. 1982) (“The doctrine is a self-imposed prudential limitation
rather than a recognition of a limitation of the courts' power.”)
The
remaining
claims
have
not
been
fully
litigated
and
decided, and, at this point, the Court exercises its discretion by
declining to enter judgment on any claims or affirmative defenses
currently pending in this action.1
Granting the Smiths’ motion is
not necessary for the case to proceed, nor are the Smiths unduly
prejudiced by allowing the defense to remain in the HASB’s Answer.
Thus, the motion is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (DE #58) is DENIED.
DATED: November 9, 2012
/s/RUDY LOZANO, Judge
United States District Court
1
The Smiths have not moved to have the affirmative defense stricken
from the HASB’s answer; in fact, in their reply brief, the Smiths state that
“[a] motion to strike is not the proper procedure to attack the affirmative
defense.”
-4-
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?