Opinion
1:20-cv-33-MOC-WCM
11-18-2022
SHAILESH JAHAGIRDAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. THE COMPUTER HAUS NC, INC., d/b/a/ CITYMAC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN JR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS MATTER is before the Court on two separate Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Defendants Mark Curran, Curran Brothers, LLL, Amber Curran, Brandy Curran, Troy Curran, Curran Holdings, LLC, Curran Ranch, Green Vault, Inc., Northern Passage, Inc., Ocean Dance, Ocean Tech, Inc., Salish Sea, LLC, TS Leasing, LLC, The Computer Haus NC, Inc., and Zephyr Investments, Inc. (Doc. Nos. 266, 269). Having considered the motions, and otherwise reviewed the pleadings, the Court enters the following Order.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings, (Doc. Nos. 266, 269), are DENIED for the reasons discussed in Plaintiffs' Responses and Surreply. See (Doc. Nos. 275, 276, 284). That is, as Plaintiffs note, the pending motions (1) seek to relitigate issues that have already been decided in Plaintiffs' favor on Defendants' prior motion to dismiss; (2) are untimely; and (3) overlook the bases for liability alleged in the Fourth Amended Complaint (“FAC”) and raises challenges that do not dispose of any full cause of action.
The pending motions were filed long after the deadline for dispositive motions. Moreover, although Defendants note that the trial has been continued to February 2023, the trial was still set for October 2022 when Defendants filed their motions in August 2022.
Additionally, and in any event, the pleading standards on Rule 12(c) and 12(6) motions are extremely lenient. See Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007), and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).
IT IS SO ORDERED.