Makreas v. The Moore Law Group, A.P.C. et al

Filing 62

ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 3, 2012 HEARING. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on January 31, 2012. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/31/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

NICK MAKREAS,

No. C-11-2406 MMC

Plaintiff,

ORDER VACATING FEBRUARY 3, 2012
HEARING

v.
THE MOORE LAW GROUP, A.P.C., et al.,

12

Defendants.

/

13
14

Before the Court are two motions to dismiss, filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the

15

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: (1) defendant The Moore Law Group, A.P.C.’s (“Moore”)

16

motion, filed November 21, 2011; and (2) defendant Citibank (South Dakota), N.A.’s

17

motion, filed November 14, 2011. Plaintiff Nick Makreas (“Makreas”) has filed opposition to

18

each motion, and each defendant has filed a reply. Additionally, Makreas has filed a “reply”

19

to Moore’s reply.1 Further, with leave of court, Moore and Makreas have each filed

20

supplemental briefing to address a jurisdictional issue.

21

Having read and considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the

22

motions, the Court deems the matters suitable for determination on the parties’ respective

23

written submissions, and VACATES the hearing scheduled for February 3, 2012.

24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26

Dated: January 31, 2012
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

27
28

1

As explained in the Court’s order of December 23, 2011, although Makreas’ filing of
a “reply” to a reply is procedurally improper, the Court will consider said filing.