JAMES C. MAHAN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Presently before the court is defendant Travelers Casualty and Surety Company of America’s (hereinafter “defendant”) motion for partial judgment on the pleadings. (Doc. # 36.) Plaintiff Clark County School District (hereinafter “plaintiff”) filed a response, (doc. # 40), and defendant filed a reply, (doc. # 47.)
Also before the court is plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. # 37.) Defendant filed a response, (doc. # 42), and plaintiff filed a reply, (doc. # 49.)
Also before the court is defendant’s motion for a continuance as to plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). (Doc. # 43.) Plaintiff filed a response, (doc. # 50), and defendant filed a reply, (doc. # 51).
In 2007, plaintiff determined that many of its elementary schools required modernizations, including changes to heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (“HVAC”) systems. (Doc. # 9.) In early 2010, plaintiff began advertising and accepting bids to complete the projects. (Doc. # 9.) Pursuant to Nevada Revised Statute 338, the contracts for the projects required performance bonds to protect against contractor default. (Doc. # 9.)
Big Town Mechanical (“BTM”) submitted the lowest bids for all fifteen school projects. (Doc. # 9.) Plaintiff awarded the contracts to BTM. (Doc. # 9.) Defendant issued performance bonds for each project. (Doc. # 9.) The bonds incorporate the terms of the contracts, including liquidated damage and warranty provisions. (Doc. # 9.) They also obligate defendant to arrange for completion or correction of any projects upon default by BTM. (Doc. # 9.)
In fall 2010, plaintiff declared BTM in default on certain project obligations. (Doc. # 9.) In or around May 2013, BTM filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy protection. (Doc. # 9.) BTM eventually defaulted on all projects. (Doc. # 9.) Defendant then refused to fulfill its duties under the bonds, and the project work remained unfinished. (Doc. # 9.)
On June 21, 2013, plaintiff filed the instant action. (Doc. # 1.) On August 19, 2013, plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging five causes of action: (1) mandatory injunction to compel specific performance; (2) breach of contract; (3) contractual breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (4) tortious breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (5) declaratory relief. (Doc. # 9.)
On September 6, 2013, defendant filed an answer to plaintiff’s amended complaint. (Doc. # 10.) On February 3, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation to stay the action to allow defendant to complete the project work. (Doc. # 24.)
On March 21, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment. (Doc. # 26.) On March 25, 2014, Magistrate Judge Leen stayed the case for sixty days. (Doc. # 27.) On April 17, 2014, the court denied plaintiff’s motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice, on account of the stay. (Doc. # 28.)
On May 23, 2014, the parties submitted a joint status report with proposed procedural deadlines. (Doc. # 29.) On June 3, 2014, Judge Leen approved the parties’ proposed schedule. (Doc. # 30.) On July 3, 2013, Judge Leen granted defendant leave to file a counterclaim. (Doc. # 33.)
On July 7, 2014, defendant filed a counterclaim for breach of contract and contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. (Doc. # 34.) On July 23, 2014, plaintiff filed an answer to defendant’s counterclaim. (Doc. # 35.) The parties then filed the instant motions.
On November 14, 2014, the parties filed a stipulation and order to continue pending procedural deadlines to allow for project completion. (Doc. # 48.) On December 15, 2014, Judge Leen granted the stipulation, extending the discovery deadline to September 7, 2015. (Doc. # 56.)
II. Legal Standard
i. Judgment on the pleadings
Motions for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) are “functionally identical” to motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Dworkin v. Hustler Magazine Inc., 867 F.2d 1188, 1192 (9th Cir. 1989). The primary difference between the two is that a “Rule 12(c) motion, unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, implicates the pleadings as a whole, and not merely the complaint.” Amerson v. County of Clark, ...