Whitall v. Gutierrez
- Charles Breyer
- 3:18-cv-01376
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 1
In Whitall v. Gutierrez, Judge Breyer denied Gutierrez’s motion because Rule 12(c) cannot target part of a claim.
Defendant Davina Gutierrez and plaintiff Raymond Richard Whitall; the court denied Gutierrez’s motion concerning Whitall’s request for punitive damages.
What happened
In Whitall v. Gutierrez, defendant Davina Gutierrez asked the court to remove plaintiff Raymond Richard Whitall’s request for punitive damages from his claims against her.
The court ruled that the motion was procedurally improper because Rule 12(c) does not allow a motion for judgment on the pleadings to address only part of a claim. Gutierrez also asked the court to strike the punitive-damages request under Rule 12(f), but she raised that request for the first time in her reply brief.
Judge Charles Breyer denied Gutierrez’s motion. The order did not decide whether Whitall could ultimately receive punitive damages.
The detailed version
- Whitall v. Gutierrez · No. 3:18-cv-01376
- Charles Breyer
- Apr. 23, 2025
Background
Defendant Davina Gutierrez moved for judgment on the pleadings regarding plaintiff Raymond Richard Whitall’s request for punitive damages. A motion for judgment on the pleadings is a request to decide a claim based on the pleadings filed in the case.
Court’s reasoning
The court held that the motion was procedurally improper. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) does not authorize a motion for judgment on the pleadings that targets only part of a claim. The court distinguished Gutierrez’s current motion from the defendants’ earlier Rule 12(c) motion, which sought to dismiss entire claims.
Gutierrez also asked the court to strike Whitall’s request for punitive damages under Rule 12(f), which permits a court to remove certain material from a pleading. The court found that request was not properly before it because Gutierrez raised it for the first time in her reply brief.
Ruling
The court DENIED Gutierrez’s motion. The order did not decide whether Whitall could ultimately receive punitive damages.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.