(a) Motions to dismiss petition for review or complaint. A motion to dismiss a petition for review or a complaint may be filed in lieu of an answer, within the time limit for filing an answer set forth in § 821.24(c) or § 821.31(b). If such motion is not granted in its entirety, the answer shall be filed within 10 days after service of the law judge's order on the motion.
(b) Motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. A motion to dismiss on the ground that the Board lacks jurisdiction may be made by any party at any time.
(c) Motions for judgment on the pleadings. A party may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the basis that no answer has been filed, or that the pleadings disclose that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved and that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
(d) Motions for summary judgment. A party may file a motion for summary judgment on the basis that the pleadings and other supporting documentation establish that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved and that party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
(e) Appeals of dismissal, judgment on the pleadings and summary judgment orders. When a law judge grants a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment, and terminates the proceeding without a hearing, an appeal of such order to the Board may be filed pursuant to the provisions of § 821.47. When a motion to dismiss, a motion for judgment on the pleadings or a motion for summary judgment is granted in part, § 821.16 applies.
Notes of Decisions
Singleton v. Babbitt, 588 F.3d 1078 (D.C. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “at 5 , and summary judgment was therefore appropriate under NTSB Rule 17(d), 49 C.F.R. § 821.17 (d), because there were “no material facts in dispute,” id.”
Casino Airlines, Inc. v. Nat'l Transp. Saf. Bd., 439 F.3d 715 (D.C. Cir. 2006).
“” 49 C.F.R. § 821.17 (d). Here, the FAA filed a motion for summary judgment and attached affidavits declaring that Casino did not have the required economic authority and was not employing a chief inspector.”
Kolek v. Engen, 869 F.2d 1281 (9th Cir. 1989).
· cites it 2× “See 49 C.F.R. § 821.17 (b) (1987); Administrator v.”
Lackey v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 386 F. App'x 689 (9th Cir. 2010).
“” 49 C.F.R. § 821.17 (d). Because neither the ASP Rules nor the FRCP require a party moving for summary judgment to submit additional documents in support of its motion, the ALJ did not err in granting summary judgment to the FAA.”
Eitan Leaschauer v. Michael Huerta, 667 F. App'x 253 (9th Cir. 2016).
“EA-5524 (2010) (setting forth preclusion analysis); 49 C.F.R. § 821.17 (setting forth summary judgment standard).”
Leaschauer v. Fed. Aviation Admin., 667 F. App'x 251 (9th Cir. 2016).
· cites it 2× “2008) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires agency to base decision on consideration of relevant factors and avoid clear error); 49 C.F.R. § 821.17 (setting forth summary judgment standard); 14 C.”
Barton & Assocs. Inc. v. Trainor (D. Ariz. 2020).
“LEGAL STANDARD 12 A party may file a motion for judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c) on the 13 basis “the pleadings disclose that there are no material issues of fact to be resolved and that 14 party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
United States Am. v. Crown (N.D. Ill. 2018).
“Crown, pro se] has the legal standing to bring this motion pursuant to show cause order certified by 7" Circuit on 3-26-2018 requesting a legal response by 4-6-2018 This responsive motion is then timely filed under FRCP 12 (c) — judgment on the pleadings.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.