Judgment on the Pleadings Distinguished.Rule 12(c) - authorizes any party to move for judgment on the pleadings after the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial. This device tests thelegal sufficiency of the pleadings, but does not go behind the pleadings to the real facts.

Rule 12(c) is a stunted version of Rule 56. 56 has many more advantages and should never really have to use 12(c).

(1)Relation of Rule 12(c) to Rule 12(b)(6) and to Rule12(f):-Major difference is timing12(c) works after the pleadings close whereas 12(b)(6) doesn’t.Both 12(c) and (f) work after the pleadings have closed BUT 12(c) is technically proper if judgment on the whole claim is sought and use of Rule 12(f) is technically proper if striking of fewer than all defenses to the claim is sought.

(2) Conversion of Rule 12 Motions: On a motion Rule 12(b)(6), (f), or (c), if materials outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion is treated as a summary judgment motion.

(3)Differences between 12(c) and 561) 12(c) can only decide questions of law on the pleadings. 56 decides whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, therefore, can look at other information, e.g. affidavits.2)12(c) pleadings must be closed. 56 can do it at any time for defendant.3)12(c) have hearing w/in five daysand 56 hearing w/in 10 days

This is my take on 12(b)(6) v. 12(c) v. SJ:

12(b)(6) is a motion brought by the defendant saying "the pleadings of the plaintiff are not enough for recovery." Basically, there isn't any law to support the case.

12(c) is essentially a 12(b)(6) brought AFTER the responsive pleading has been made. For example, the plaintiff might allege in his complaint that "Plaintiff struck and injured me with a hammer on June 6, 2005." A defendant's responsive pleading might say "Defendant admits striking and injuring plaintiff, but with a wrench not a hammer, and the incident in question took place on June 7th at 12:15 AM." In this case, yes the defendant is denying the precise claim, but the denial is not at all a bar to recovery. This seems like an appropriate case for a 12(c) to be brought by the plaintiff.

On the other hand, defendant might present an affirmative defense: "Defendant admits striking plaintiff, but did so in defense of his own life because plaintiff had a gun pointed at him and was threatening to shoot." This would probably be a good case for a 12(c) by the defendant. If plaintiff admits "Yeah, I was threatening him," then the case can be dismissed.

Finally, if plaintiff denies threatening him, defendant may introduce affidavits and other evidence to support his claim. Now the 12(c) claim converts, essentially, to a FRCP 56 claim, and the standard of evaluation becomes summary judgment.

(The affirmative defense 12c example is slightly inconsistent with real life, since all affirmative defenses are presumed denied, and the plaintiff would have to be an idiot to admit them... but you get the idea.)

12b6 Tests legal sufficiency of complaint, is made after the complaint, made by D, and results in pleading being dismissed (and allows redrafting

12c tests legal sufficiency of the pleadings, made after pleadings close, can be made by either party, and results in judgment which means the case is over