Friends of Gualala River v. Gualala Redwood Timber, LLC

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: August 3, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-06453
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 FRIENDS OF GUALALA RIVER, et al., Case No. 20-cv-06453-JD

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER RE MOTION FOR 9 v. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

10 GUALALA REDWOOD TIMBER, LLC, Re: Dkt. No. 63 Defendant. 11

12 13 Defendant Gualala Redwood Timber (GRT) asks for judgment on the complaint under 14 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Dkt. No. 63 (Mot.); Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.). The “one 15 question” posed by GRT is whether res judicata bars the claims in the complaint. Dkt. No. 63 at 1. 16 The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed, and the motion is granted. 17 Rule 12(c) provides that “[a]fter the pleadings are closed -- but early enough not to delay 18 trial -- a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.” Rule 12(c) and Rule 12(b)(6) motions 19 are functionally identical, and so the standards for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion apply to a Rule 12(c) 20 motion. Gregg v. Hawaii, 870 F.3d 883, 887 (9th Cir. 2017). The Court takes as true the 21 plausible and nonconclusory factual allegations in the complaint, and draws all reasonable 22 inferences from those allegations in plaintiffs’ favor. See Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc., 953 F.3d 1063, 23 1068 (9th Cir. 2020). A Rule 12(c) motion may be granted when there is no issue of material fact 24 in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fleming v. Pickard, 25 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). Res judicata is a proper basis for granting a Rule 12(c) motion. 26 See Scott v. Kuhlmann, 746 F.2d 1377, 1378 (9th Cir. 1984); see also Yagman v. Garcetti, 743 27 Fed. App’x 837, 839 (9th Cir. 2018) (affirming Rule 12(c) dismissal on basis of res judicata) 1 Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) motions generally are confined to the four corners of the 2 complaint, and any materials it incorporates. See Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 3 (9th Cir. 2001). Even so, there are occasions when the Court “may consider facts that ‘are 4 contained in materials of which the court may take judicial notice.’” Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford 5 Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 981 n.18 (9th Cir. 1999) (citation omitted); Fed. R. Evid. 201. 6 Specifically, the Court may take judicial notice “of proceedings in other courts both within and 7 without the federal judicial system, if those proceedings have a direct relation to matters at issue.” 8 Bias v. Moynihan, 508 F.3d 1212, 1225 (9th Cir. 2007) (quotations and citation omitted). Taking 9 such notice does not convert the Rule 12(c) motion into a summary judgment motion. See Van 10 Buskirk v. CNN, 284 F.3d 977, 980 (9th Cir. 2002); Barron v. Reich, 13 F.3d 1370, 1377 (9th Cir. 11 1994). 12 The question of res judicata depends largely on the decisions and orders entered by the 13 California state courts in prior litigation pursued by plaintiff Friends of Gualala River. The salient 14 decisions were filed as exhibits in support of GRT’s motion. See Dkt. No. 63-1. Plaintiffs do not 15 appear to have expressly objected to notice of the court documents in the exhibits, see Dkt. No. 94, 16 and any such objections that may be there are overruled. Judicial notice is granted for the 17 decisions and orders entered by the Superior Court and the Court of Appeal. For present purposes, 18 judicial notice is limited to the documents in Dkt. No. 63-1. 19 The Court analyzed in detail the application of res judicata to plaintiffs’ claims in the order 20 denying plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 100. The Court concluded that, 21 in light of the state court proceedings, plaintiffs were precluded from bringing the claims alleged 22 in the complaint here. The Court incorporates the same analysis and conclusions here, and grants 23 GRT’s motion on that basis. 24 Plaintiffs’ objection to the sequence and timing of the GRT’s motion, see Dkt. No. 81 at 4, 25 is not well taken. Even assuming that GRT’s motion may not have strictly complied with Rule 26 12(g), the Court has the discretion to take it up in the interests of practicality and efficiency. See 27 In re Apple iPhone Antitrust Litig., 846 F.3d 313, 318-19 (9th Cir. 2017). 1 While Rule 12(c) does not expressly mention the possibility of amending a complaint, the 2 option is available. See Gregg, 870 F.3d at 889. The Court declines to conclude at this time that 3 no plausible amendment is possible, and so plaintiffs may file an amended complaint consistent 4 || with the order by August 19, 2021. A failure to meet this deadline may result in dismissal with 5 prejudice under Rule 41(b). 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: August 3, 2021 8 9 JAMES JPONATO 10 United ptates District Judge 11 12

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28