Precision Industrial Contractors Inc v. Jack R. Gage Refrigeration Inc

Opinion

1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 4 5 PRECISION INDUSTRIAL CONTRACTORS INC., 6 Plaintiff, 7 C19-5810 TSZ v. 8 MINUTE ORDER JACK R. GAGE REFRIGERATION 9 INC., et al., Defendants. 10

11 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 12 (1) Defendant Jack R. Gage Refrigeration, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss 13 (“Motion”), docket no. 78, is DENIED. “As under a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is properly granted only when ‘taking 14 all the allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” Herrera v. Zumiez, Inc., 953 F.3d 1063, 1068 (9th Cir. 2020) (quoting 15 Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 978–79 (9th Cir. 1999)). Defendant’s conclusory assertion that Plaintiff Precision Industrial Contractors Inc. “has 16 failed to state claim upon which relief can be granted,” without more, is insufficient to explain why Plaintiff’s complaint is lacking or why Defendant is entitled to judgment as a 17 matter of law. See Motion (docket no. 78 at 3). Nor does Defendant assume Plaintiff’s allegations to be true, as it must, in order to prevail on this Motion. See id. at 2. 18 (2) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of 19 record. Dated this 2nd day of April, 2021. 20 21 William M. McCool Clerk 22