Shervin v. City of Newark, California et al
Filing
90
ORDER re 33 directing further explanation from Newark counsel (vrwlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2009)
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 United United States District Court For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 VAUGHN R WALKER United States District Chief Judge IT IS SO ORDERED. The court has reviewed defendant Newark's motion to dismiss, Doc #33, and seeks further explanation why plaintiffs do not state an equal protection claim as a "class of one." Village of Willowbrook v Olech, 528 US 562 (2000); LLC v City of Pacifica, 526 F3d 478 (9th Cir 2008). See AMIR H SHERVIN and SHIRIN N SHERVIN, Plaintiffs, v CITY OF NEWARK et al, Defendants. / No C 08-1631 VRW ORDER IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
North Pacifica Counsel are
directed to respond to the court either in writing or at the hearing scheduled for January 22, 2009 at 2:30 PM.
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
