Steiner v. Vi-Jon Inc
- Martinez-Olguin
- 3:23-cv-00473
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Steiner v. Vi-Jon Inc., Judge Martinez-Olguin denied Vi-Jon’s reconsideration request, ordered a Rule 12(c) schedule, and stayed discovery.
Vi-Jon’s request for reconsideration was denied; the parties must address the schedule for a Rule 12(c) motion, and discovery is stayed while that motion is pending.
What happened
In Danielle Steiner et al. v. Vi-Jon Inc., Vi-Jon asked for permission to seek reconsideration of an earlier order that granted part of its motion to dismiss and denied part of it.
The court decided that Vi-Jon’s proposed challenge to whether the claims were legally plausible should be raised through a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), rather than a summary-judgment motion. The court directed the parties to meet and confer about a briefing schedule for that motion.
Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Vi-Jon’s motion for permission to file a reconsideration motion, stayed discovery until the Rule 12(c) motion is resolved, and ordered the parties to submit a proposed briefing schedule by noon Pacific time on October 31, 2024.
The detailed version
- Steiner v. Vi-Jon Inc · No. 3:23-cv-00473
- Martinez-Olguin
- Oct. 24, 2024
Background
Vi-Jon moved for permission to file a motion asking the court to reconsider an earlier order that granted in part and denied in part Vi-Jon’s motion to dismiss. The court held a conference with the parties about the proper procedure for Vi-Jon’s proposed challenge. The parties left the conference with directions to discuss a briefing schedule for a narrowly focused summary-judgment motion.
Court’s Analysis
After further consideration, the court concluded that the proper procedure was a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), not a motion for summary judgment under Rule 56. The court explained that Vi-Jon was substantively challenging the plausibility of the plaintiffs’ claims. The court also stated that it was inclined, but had not yet decided, to treat test results as incorporated into the operative complaint by reference.
Ruling
The court ordered the parties to meet and confer and submit a proposed briefing schedule for Vi-Jon’s Rule 12(c) motion by noon Pacific time on October 31, 2024. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin denied Vi-Jon’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration. The court also stayed discovery pending resolution of Vi-Jon’s Rule 12(c) motion.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.