Just wrapped up for the day (or I thought I did), and dammit — it happened again….someone on the internet is WRONG!
I unintentionally saw a comment on Reddit where some idiot was trying to roast me because I didn’t know the difference between a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (MJOP) and a Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ).
OKAY, let me drop this tiny bit of knowledge — you are WRONG bro, and you don’t even have the sense to realize WHY.
So let me help you, my sweet little keyboard warrior….
When a DEFENDANT moves for judgment on the pleadings, what does that mean? That means the defendant is claiming the Complaint fails as a matter of law.
In that posture – where the moving party is the DEFENDANT, and they are challenging the COMPLAINT — what pleading(s) do/does the court need to look at to resolve the motion?
Simple — the court only needs to look at the Complaint….because that is the only pleading being challenged:
A Rule 12(c) motion is subject to a similar standard as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. This standard requires that the allegations of the non-moving party be accepted as true and that the allegations of the moving party which have been denied be treated as false. It further requires that the facts be construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when there is no issue of material fact in dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
Delta Zee Sols. LLC v. Britannia Tucson LLC, 2026 WL 71411, *3 (D.Ariz. 2026) (cleaned up) (citing extensive authority).
Got that? If the moving party is the DEFENDANT, the court only needs to review the Complaint, because that’s the only pleading with facts we need to resolve. That’s so simple even you can understand it.
But is Jim Lee the DEFENDANT? No, Einstein…Jim Lee is NOT the defendant. I am.
Jim Lee is (effectively) the PLAINTIFF.
Why does that matter? Take a deep breath, you’ll need the extra oxygen to boost all four of your brain cells – HERE IT COMES — when the moving party is the PLAINTIFF, a different standard applies because — WAIT FOR IT — the court needs to review BOTH the COMPLAINT and (drum roll please) — THE ANSWER!
Here, put your bong aside and lemme help you, Bro –
“A plaintiff is entitled to judgment on the pleadings only where the complaint ‘set[s] forth a claim for relief and the answer fails to assert a legally sufficient defense[.]’” Flake v. Silva, 2025 WL 2452213, *3 (Ariz. App. 2025) (emphasis added) (quoting Pac. Fire Rating Bureau v. Ins. Co. N. Am., 83 Ariz. 369, 376 (1958)). “Or, stated differently, a plaintiff’s motion for judgment on the pleadings should be denied where issues of fact are properly raised by the answer.” Bank of Am., N.A. v. Allen, 2015 WL 6696911, *2 (Ariz. App. 2015) (emphasis added) (quoting Dons Club v. Anderson, 83 Ariz. 94, 98 (1957)).
Oh fuck, Reddit. Get it now? See, when the plaintiff tries to use the MJOP trick to end a case early, the judge don’t gotta stop with the Complaint (which would mean it’s really not like a MSJ). No! No!
When the moving party is the plaintiff, da judge ALSO gotta think ’bout da damn Answer, because, you know, the Answer also matters. Because it’s the plaintiff who is trying to win, and they don’t win if the Answer has any valid defense.
Does that help you see things a little more clearly? And does that help you now realize what I said was 100% right? My Answer raises all sorts of issues and defenses. Those cannot be ignored in this posture.
I realize Jim Lee wants to pretend my defenses aren’t a problem. Like they don’t exist. That’s fine. Except that isn’t how this works.
Man, I can’t wait to leave this profession….