Legal Question in Civil Litigation in California

No. It's very common for litigants to be involved in discovery disputes, and to have discovery motions pending. If merely filing a discovery motion could prevent the other side from filing a different type of motion, litigants would file them just to block one another. The rules are designed to discourage such game-playing.

A judgment on the pleadings isn't about evidence anyway. It says that, no matter what evidence you might come up with, you can't possibly win. So the fact that you don't have the defendant's evidence yet doesn't matter. To defeat the motion you need only show what the evidence *might* say, not what it actually *does* say.

That is the difference between a judgment on the pleadings and a summary judgment. A summary judgment is based on the evidence that actually exists. The moving party argues that no reasonable jury could rule against him based upon that evidence, while the opposing party argues otherwise.

A motion for judgment on the pleadings argues that the other side's position is untenable because of the law, not because of the facts. The facts don't matter in that kind of argument, which is why your current inability to get some evidence has no bearing on that motion.

You really need to discuss your case with a lawyer. If your pleadings are deficient, you will want to do something about it as quickly as possible. Even if they aren't deficient, a lawyer can help you explain why. Otherwise there is a good chance that you will lose the motion even if you deserve to win.

Good luck.

Mr. Hoffman is correct, although there's a simpler way to say what a motion for judgment on the pleadings means: It means that whatever you stated in your answer was legally insufficient to raise a defense, and thus plaintiff should be awarded judgment and not have to spend more money on attorneys to prosecute the case.

Perhaps you forgot to check a box on a form answer denying what the plaintiff had stated in the complaint, or you failed to raise affirmative defenses. You might seek a stipulation from the plaintiff's attorney to permit amendment of the pleadings (along the lines suggested in the motion), or bring a motion for leave to amend to enable you to dispute plaintiff's claim(s). Unfortunately, those who represent themselves often are caught in these legal difficulties.

Prior counsel are correct. The motion to compel and the motion for judgment on the pleadings are completely independent. Your motion to compel does not result in a deferral of the other side's motion.

You need to get an attorney to review this for you. If I understand correctly, the other side is saying that even if you prove everything in your complaint as being 100% true, the law says that you would lose. As an example, suppose the complaint says that the defendant breached a contract ten years ago, and now the plaintiffs want to recover the money owed. The statute of limitations is four years, however, and the complaint clearly shows that the statute applies. The complaint in that case shows that plaintiff has no way to win, so the case can be dismissed on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.