Designee LLC v. Honda Aircraft Company LLC et al

Filing 11

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that in the response and reply to the motion to dismiss 10 , Plaintiff and Defendants shall address whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case. See Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 346 (9th Ci r. 1996) (noting that a state law tort claim alleging violations of state and federal law does not confer federal question jurisdiction). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are reminded that under General Order 17-08 (Doc. 4 ), filing a motion to dismiss does not extend the time to answer. Signed by Senior Judge James A Teilborg on 8/23/17. (MAW)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Designee LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

ORDER

v.

12

No. CV-17-02794-PHX-JAT

Honda Aircraft Company LLC, et al.,

13

Defendants.

14
15

IT IS ORDERED that in the response and reply to the motion to dismiss, Plaintiff

16

and Defendants shall address whether this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this

17

case. See Rains v. Criterion Sys., Inc., 80 F.3d 339, 346 (9th Cir. 1996) (noting that a

18

state law tort claim alleging violations of state and federal law does not confer federal

19

question jurisdiction).

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are reminded that under General
Order 17-08 (Doc. 4), filing a motion to dismiss does not extend the time to answer.
Dated this 23rd day of August, 2017.