Telles v. City of Waterford et al

Filing 47

ORDER GRANTING 46 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Defendant City of Waterford and ORDER VACATING Hearing Date of December 19, 2011, on 37 City of Waterford's Motion to Dismiss, signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/15/2011. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
6
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CITY OF WATERFORD, COUNTY OF )
STANISLAUS, STANISLAUS COUNTY )
SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT, OFFICER )
DENNIS CORDOVA, in his individual )
and official capacities, JOHN PURCH, )
in his individual and official capacities, )
ROBERT FISHER, in his individual and )
official capacities, DAN BILBRAY, in his )
individual and official capacities,
)
OFFICERS NUNOS, BRALEY,
)
HEILMAN, HINKLE, MATOS,
)
JENKINS and KIRKBRIDGE, and
)
DOES 1-50,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
____________________________________)
HENRY WILLIAM TELLES, SR.,
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

CIV F 10-0982 AWI SKO
ORDER GRANTING
UNOPPOSED MOTION TO
DISMISS DEFENDANT CITY
OF WATERFORD

20
21
In this action for civil rights violation and damages, defendants City of Waterford filed a
22
motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”) pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of
23
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on November 9, 2011. Oral argument on City of
24
Waterford’s Motion to dismiss was scheduled to be held on December 19, 2011. On November
25
17, 2011, Defendant County of Stanislaus filed a notice of non-opposition to City of Waterford’s
26
Motion to Dismiss. On December 12, 2011, Plaintiff filed a document titled “Motion to Dismiss
27
Defendant City of Waterford,” which consists of a single sentence moving the court to “dismiss
28

1

all claims of action from [sic] the Defendant, City of Waterford.”

2

The court interprets Plaintiff’s filing of December 12, 2011, as a motion for voluntary

3

dismissal of defendant City of Waterford. The court concludes, based on the notice of non-

4

opposition, that Plaintiff’s motion is unopposed by the remaining Defendants. The court will

5

therefore grant Plaintiff’s motion and will vacate the hearing date for oral argument on the

6

motion.

7

Therefore, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s TAC is hereby DISMISSED in its

8

entirety as to defendant City of Waterford only. The currently set hearing date of December 19,

9

2011, on City of Waterford’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby VACATED and no party shall appear

10

at that time.

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.

12
13

Dated:
9h0d30

December 15, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2