# Johnson v. The Preserves at Stonebriar Homeowners Association INC.

> District Court, M.D. Florida · November 19, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10744512

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Florida
- **Decided:** November 19, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10744512

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION

SHERMA JOHNSON,

Plaintiff,

v. Case No: 6:23-cv-1585-CEM-LHP

THE PRESERVES AT STONEBRIAR
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION
INC. and DOES 1-10,

Defendants

ORDER
This cause came on for consideration without oral argument on the following
motion filed herein:
MOTION: DEFENDANT, THE PRESERVE AT STONEBRIAR
HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, INC’S, MOTION
FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND TO
DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S AMENDED COMPLAINT
(Doc. No. 20)
FILED: April 3, 2024

THEREON it is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED without
prejudice.
Plaintiff Sherma Johnson, appearing pro se, instituted this action against
Defendant The Preserves at Stonebriar Homeowners Association, Inc. by complaint
filed on August 18, 2023. Doc. No. 1. Plaintiff’s operative pleading is her
amended complaint, filed on November 13, 2023. Doc. No. 8.1

Defendant has not answered the amended complaint. Instead, on April 3,
2024, Defendant filed the above-styled motion seeking judgment on the pleadings
under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c), and dismissal of the amended

complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Doc. No. 20.
According to the motion, conferral with Plaintiff prior to filing was not required
due to the nature of the motion. Id. at 21; see Local Rule 3.01(g) (excluding motions

for judgment on the pleadings from its application). Plaintiff has responded in
opposition. Doc. No. 21.2
On November 13, 2024, Defendant’s motion was referred to the undersigned.
On review, however, the motion (Doc. No. 20) is due to be denied without prejudice.

1 Plaintiff’s initial complaint was dismissed pursuant to review under 28 U.S.C. §
1915. Doc. No. 7; see also Doc. No. 6. Plaintiff paid the filing fee upon filing the amended
complaint. Doc. No. 8.
2 On September 11, 2024, while the motion was still pending, the case was
dismissed for failure to comply with Court Orders, but the case was ultimately reopened.
Doc. Nos. 32, 35. A Case Management and Scheduling Order issued September 30, 2024.
Doc. No. 36.
Specifically, the motion is styled as one for judgment on the pleadings under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Doc. No. 20. However, Defendant has not
yet answered the amended complaint. “When only a single pleading has been

filed, ‘competing pleadings’ do not exist, so a motion for judgment on the pleadings
is not appropriate.” Perez v. Wells Fargo N.A., 774 F.3d 1329, 1336 (11th Cir. 2014);
see also Lillian B. ex rel. Brown v. Gwinnett Cty. Sch. Dist., 631 F. App’x 851, 853 (11th
Cir. 2015) (“By the plain language of Rule 12(c), a party may not move for judgment

on the pleadings until ‘[a]fter the pleadings are closed.’ The pleadings are closed
only when a complaint and answer have been filed.” (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a))).3
Given that Defendant does not appropriately seek relief under Rule 12(c), the

Court considers the motion only as it relates to Defendant’s arguments under Rule
12(b)(6). However, in this regard, the motion fails to comply with Local Rule
3.01(g) because Defendant did not confer with Plaintiff prior to filing the motion.
See Doc. No. 20, at 21; see also Local Rule 3.01(g) (excluding motions for judgment

on the pleadings, but not motions to dismiss, from its application).
Accordingly, for these reasons, Defendant’s motion (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED
without prejudice. Defendant may file a renewed motion to dismiss within

3 Unpublished opinions of the Eleventh Circuit are cited as persuasive authority.
See 11th Cir. R. 36–2.
fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order, in full compliance with all applicable
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rules. Alternatively, on or before this

same deadline, Defendant shall answer the amended complaint (Doc. No. 8).
DONE and ORDERED in Orlando, Florida on November 19, 2024.

| ay □□□□
LESLIE AN PRICE
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties

_4-

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10744512. Public record. Not legal advice.