“The main difference between the motions is that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is made after an answer and that answer may also be considered in deciding the motion.” United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011). Judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is appropriate when there are no material facts in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

A motion under this Rule is “governed by the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011). Thus, the Court “accept[s] the facts in the Complaint as true and view[s] them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.”

A motion under Rule 12(c) is “governed by the same standards as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).” United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011). Thus, when evaluating a motion under Rule 12(c), the Court “accept[s] the facts in the Complaint as true and view[s] them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.

.” United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011).

“In deciding a Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings, a Court may consider only the pleadings.” United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011). “Judgment on the pleadings is appropriate when there are no material facts in dispute, and judgment may be rendered by considering the substance of the pleadings and any judicially noticed facts.” Hawthorne v. Mac Adjustment, Inc., 140 F.3d 1367, 1370 (11th Cir. 1998).

Therefore, a court is no longer required to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 25(a). See, e.g., United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 341 (M.D. Ala. 2011); Lewis v. Flowers, Civ. Act. No. 1:15-cv-116-HSO-JCG, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 173604, at *7, 2016 WL 7265046, at * 3 (S.D. Miss. Dec. 15, 2016); Rowland v. GGNSC Ripley, LLC, Civ. Act. No. 3:13-cv-000111-DMB-SAA, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 101733, at *13, 2016 WL 4136486, at *5 (N.D. Miss. Aug. 8, 2016); Sydow v. Weyerhaeuser Co., Civ. Act. No. 14-cv-219-wmc, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 152160, at * 5, n. 2, at * 1, n. 2 (W.D. Wis. Nov. 10, 2015). This Court aligns with its sister courts in finding that a Rule 25(a) dismissal is not an adjudication on the merits.

"The main difference between the motions is that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is made after an answer and that answer may also be considered in deciding the motion." United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011). B. Counts 2-3

"Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) provides that [a]fter the pleadings are closed—but early enough not to delay trial—a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." IMX, Inc. v. E-Loan, Inc., 748 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1356 (S.D. Fla. 2010) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c)); see United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011) ([a Rule 12(b)(6)] motion must be made before filing a responsive pleading) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)).

Still, it is a distinction without a difference. See, United States v. Bahr, 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011) (Fuller, J.) (noting that the same standard is used for motions filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) and that "[t]he main difference between the motions is that a motion for judgment on the pleadings is made after an answer and that answer may also be considered in deciding the motion.").

The standard is functionally the same as that for a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. SeeUnited States v. Bahr , 275 F.R.D. 339, 340 (M.D. Ala. 2011). Thus, the court must accept the facts alleged in the complaint as true and view them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.