green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 20×
152.5 score
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2024–2026 · 3 courts ·
…the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing. because the motions are functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
at p. 1192
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1989 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1989
2007
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Shiri Willcot v. Regional Acceptance Corporation (RAC) and IA American Warranty Corp. d/b/a IA American Warranty Group (IAWC)
the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing. because the motions are functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Stevens v. Lee
the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing. because the motions are functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Paplekaj v. FCA US, LLC
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
because 5 the motions are functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a rule 6 12(b) motion applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Washington Schools Risk Management Pool v. American Re-Insurance Company
(2×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 6 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Lauren Stroble v. Walmart
the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing. because the motions are functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Ferro, M.D. v. Safeco Insurance Company of America
he principal difference between motions filed pursuant 11 to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
J.G. v. University of San Francisco Welfare Benefit Plan
the same standard of 22 review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Complot v. Synchrony Bank
the principal difference between motions filed 14 pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing. because the motions are 15 functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion 16 applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Li v. Arcsoft, Inc.
the principal difference between 8 motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing. because the motions are 9 functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its 10 rule 12(c) analog.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Gastelum v. Kohl's Department Stores Inc.
he principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is 6 the time of filing
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hall v. Thomas
the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing the motions are functionally identical . . . .
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Keller v. Keller
the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing the motions are functionally identical
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Eurosesmillas, S.A. v. Plc Diagnostics, Inc.
he same standard of review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Threshold Enterprises Ltd. v. Pressed Juicery, Inc.
the principal difference between 26 motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing. because the motions are 27 functionally identical, the same standard of review applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its 1 rule 12(c) analog.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Reed v. Hammond
because the motions are functionally identical, the same standard of review 6 applicable to a rule 12(b) motion applies to its rule 12(c) analog.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Hyams v. CVS Health Corporation
the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 12(b) and 21 rule 12(c) is the time of filing.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Racing Optics, Inc. v. Aevoe Corp.
the principal difference ... is the time of filing. ... he motions are functionally identical -
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Giri v. HSBC Bank USA
the principal difference ... is the time of filing.... he motions are functionally identical. ...
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Knievel v. Espn
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule), Cited "see"
the appearance of the language in a magazine known for its pornographic content robs the statements of defamatory meaning
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gilbert L. Loaec 2014 Trust v. Doheny
the principal difference between motions filed pursuant to rule 26 12(b) and rule 12(c) is the time of filing the motions are functionally identical.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Jane Doe (J.R.F.) v. Second Street Investments LLC, doing business as Anchorage Uptown Hotel doing business as Anchorage Uptown Suites
Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047 , 1055 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that “Rule 12(c) is 'functionally identical' to Rule 12(b)(6) and that 'the same standard of review' applies to motions brought under either rule” (citing Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)). 26 Toma v. Univ. of Haw., Case No. 16-00499 RLP, 2017 WL 4782629 , at *5 (D.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Yerbae LLC v. Carl Sweat
Dworkin v. Hustler Mag. 28 Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (Oth Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Delta Zee Solutions LLC v. Britannia Tucson LLC, et al.
Inc., 26 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Julius Lipp, et al. v. Mixedbread AI, Inc.
Indeed, a Rule 12(c) motion is 2 “functionally identical” to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and courts apply the “same standard.” Dworkin 3 v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the “principal 4 difference” between Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) “is the time of filing”); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 5 Gen.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Ryan Oswald v. MV Transportation, Inc., et al.
Indeed, a Rule 12(c) motion is 9 “functionally identical” to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and courts apply the “same standard.” Dworkin 10 v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the “principal 11 difference” between Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) “is the time of filing”); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 12 Gen.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Richard Ryan Oswald v. MV Transportation, Inc., et al.
Indeed, a Rule 12(c) motion is 9 “functionally identical” to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and courts apply the “same standard.” Dworkin 10 v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the “principal 11 difference” between Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) “is the time of filing”); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 12 Gen.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheridan L. Stiles v. Target Corporation
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). 18 Accordingly, to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), “a complaint 19 must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its 20 face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheridan L. Stiles v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). 20 Accordingly, to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), “a complaint 21 must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its 22 face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheridan L. Stiles v. CVS Pharmacy Inc.
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). 20 Accordingly, to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), “a complaint 21 must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim that is plausible on its 22 face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal citations omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
James Morrison v. County of Yellowstone, et al.
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989); Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1988).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Maria Verna Liza Sablan v. Sablan Corporation, Sablan Enterprises, Inc., Sablan Construction Co., Ltd., and Conrad Muna Sablan; Conrad Muna Sablan v. Maria Verna Liza Sablan
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). 6 “Judgment on the pleadings is properly granted when there is no issue of material fact in 7 dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 8 9 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) (citing Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971 , 979 (9th Cir. 10 1999)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Elizabeth Padilla, et al. v. Western Traffic Control, Inc.
However, “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported 27 1 by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 . “[T]he same standard of 2 review applicable to a Rule 12(b) motion applies to its 12(c) analog” because the motions are 3 “functionally identical.” Dworkin v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). 4 After the pleadings are closed, but early enough not to delay trial, a party may move for judgment on the pleadings.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Erica Bluth, et al. v. Tyler Michael Baehr, et al.
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th 15 Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
IN RE ENOVIX CORPORATION SECURITIES LITIGATION
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). 18 The court must accept “all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light 19 most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) 20 (citing Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2004)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chalmers v. Cayne
Cal. 2025) (citing Dworkin v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 12 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kinsale Insurance Company v. SVS Security LLC, et al.
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)). “[T]he allegations of the non- 23 moving party must be accepted as true, while the allegations of the moving party which have been 24 denied are assumed to be false.” Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., 896 F.2d 1542 , 25 1550 (9th Cir. 1989); see also Beal v. Mo. Pac.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jeromy Moon v. Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Cal. 2004) (citing Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Faison v. Alameda County
Cal. May 12, 2025) (citing Dworkin v. Hustler 10 Mag., Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PC) Sekona v. Perez
Dworkin v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th 11 Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
McDonald v. Navy Federal Financial Group, LLC
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Peoples v. Machuca
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 13 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
(PS) Nible v. Macomber
Dynamics C4 Sys., 637 F.3d 1047 , 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (quoting 19 Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Weinzimmer-Kirk v. Probuild Contractors LLC
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989); compare Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nelson v. Thurston County
The 15 analysis under Rule 12(c) is “functionally identical” to the analysis under Rule 12(b)(6). 16 Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Smith v. City of Madera
“The principal difference between motions 13 filed pursuant to [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”)] 12(b) and Rule 12(c) is the time of 14 filing.” Dworkin v. Hustler Mag., Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Beltran v. Waste Management, Inc
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
McGee v. The City of Hercules
Indeed, a Rule 12(c) motion is 18 “functionally identical” to a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and courts apply the “same standard.” Dworkin 19 v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989) (explaining that the “principal 20 difference” between Rule 12(b)(6) and Rule 12(c) “is the time of filing”); Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. 21 Gen.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pearson v. Clackamas County Sheriff's Dept.
Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989) (noting that “[t]he principal difference between motions filed pursuant to Rule 12(b) and Rule 12(c) is the time of filing” and the motions are “functionally identical”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gatlin v. Contra Costa County
Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). 19 The court must accept “all factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light 20 most favorable to the non-moving party.” Fleming v. Pickard, 581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009) 21 (citing Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d 1219, 1225 (9th Cir. 2004)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fite v. Sysco Sacramento, Inc.
Dworkin v. Hustler Mag., 15 Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
United States
v.
Kenneth Arpan
v.
Kenneth Arpan
87-5466.
Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit.
Feb 24, 1989.
Published
Citer courts: N.D. California (1)
UNITED STATES of America, Appellee,
v.
Kenneth ARPAN, Appellant.
No. 87-5466SD.
United States Court of Appeals,
Eighth Circuit.
Feb. 24, 1989.
[*~1188]1
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota.
ORDER
[*~1200]2
Appellee's petition for rehearing en banc is granted. The opinion and judgment entered by this Court on November 21, 1988, 861 F.2d 1073, are vacated.