La v. Allen et al

Filing 25

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION. The only pending issue presented by defendants' motion is whether defendants have demonstrated that any of the five claims challenged thereby should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 21, 2009. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/21/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 For the Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRACE E. LA, Plaintiff, v. ANDRA LEONARD ALLEN, et al., Defendants /

No. C-08-5230 MMC ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF'S REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

United States District Court

On June 19, 2008, while the instant action was pending in the Southern District of California, defendants filed their "Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Strike." By order filed November 14, 2008, the Southern District of California addressed the portion of defendants' motion pertaining to venue by transferring the instant action to this district. Thereafter, on December 16, 2008, defendants sought clarification as to the procedure to be followed with respect to the unresolved portion of their motion, specifically, defendant's motion to dismiss five of plaintiff's claims for failure to state a claim.1 By order filed December 18, 2008, the Court, observing that the motion had been fully briefed while the matter was pending in the Southern District, directed defendants to renotice the motion for hearing after the parties had conferred and selected a mutually agreeable date. The motion, contrary to its title, does not include a motion to strike.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Thereafter, defendants renoticed their motion for hearing on February 27, 2009. Now before the Court is plaintiff's "Request for Clarification Re: Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Venue or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue, Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim and Motion to Strike," filed January 12, 2009. By said request, plaintiff seeks confirmation that the only matter before this Court is whether any of the five claims challenged by defendant should be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and not the issue of venue. Defendants have not filed a response to said request. Having read and considered plaintiff's request, the Court provides the following clarification. Because the issue of the propriety of venue has been decided by the Southern District of California, the only pending issue presented by defendants' motion is whether defendants have demonstrated that any of the five claims challenged thereby should be dismissed for failure to state a claim. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 21, 2009

MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

2