Kennedy v. Wells Fargo Bank N.A., et al

Filing 42

ORDER VACATING OCTOBER 14, 2011 HEARING ON DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE. Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court deems the matters suitable for deci sion thereon, and vacates the hearing scheduled for October 14, 2011. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on October 12, 2011. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/12/2011) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/12/2011: # 1 Certificate of Service) (tlS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 WILLIAM KENNEDY, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 ORDER VACATING OCTOBER 14, 2011 HEARING ON DEFENDANT WELLS FARGO’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE v. WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.; et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. C-11-0675 MMC / Before the Court is the motion of defendant Wachovia Mortgage, “a division of Wells 17 Fargo Bank, N.A., f/k/a Wachovia Mortgage, FSB, f/k/a World Savings Bank, FSB” (“Wells 18 Fargo”) (see Mot. at 1:23-24), filed September 9, 2011, to dismiss plaintiff William 19 Kennedy’s (“Kennedy”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”); Kennedy has filed opposition 20 thereto, to which Wells Fargo has replied. Also before the Court is Wells Fargo’s motion, 21 likewise filed September 9, 2011, to strike portions of the SAC; Kennedy has filed a 22 separate opposition thereto, to which Wells Fargo has separately replied. Having read and 23 considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motions, the Court deems 24 the matters suitable for decision thereon, and hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled for 25 October 14, 2011. 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. 27 28 Dated: October 12, 2010 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

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?