Whitall v. Gutierrez

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RAYMOND RICHARD WHITALL, Case No. 18-cv-01376-CRB

9 Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 10 v. JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS

11 J. CABALLERO, et al., 12 Defendants.

13 Defendant Davina Gutierrez moves for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff 14 Raymond Richard Whitall’s request for punitive damages. MJP (dkt. 241). This motion is 15 procedurally improper. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) does not authorize motions 16 for judgment on the pleadings with respect to parts of claims. See BBL, Inc. v. City of 17 Angola, 809 F.3d 317, 325 (7th Cir. 2015); Gunaratna v. Dr. Dennis Gross Skincare, LLC, 18 No. CV 20-2311-MWF, 2024 WL 650422, at *1–2 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2024) (collecting 19 Ninth Circuit cases). Unlike Defendants’ prior Rule 12(c) motion, which sought to dismiss 20 entire claims, Gutierrez’s instant motion seeks only to dismiss a portion of Whitall’s 21 claims against her. See MJP Order (dkt. 235) at 1. As for Gutierrez’s belated request to 22 strike Whitall’s request for punitive damages pursuant to Rule 12(f), see Reply (dkt. 245), 23 that is not properly before the Court because it was raised for the first time in a reply brief. 24 See Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). The Court therefore DENIES 25 Gutierrez’s motion. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 Dated: April 23, 2025