Klahn v. JP Morgan Chase National Corporation Services, Inc. et al

Filing 65

ORDER re 62 Declaration in Support filed by Beneficial Montana Inc., Paris & Paris LLP, 64 Declaration in Opposition, filed by Daniel Patrick Klahn, 63 Declaration in Support, filed by Beneficial Montana Inc., Paris & Paris LLP. Signed by Judge Elizabeth D. Laporte on August 20, 2012. (edllc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/20/2012)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

DANIEL P. KLAHN,

11
12
13

No. C -12-01124 EDL

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
REQUEST TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S
COMPLAINT

v.

14

JP MORGAN CHASE NATIONAL
CORPORATION SERVICES, INC., et al.,

15

Defendants.

/

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

On June 25, 2012, the Court issued an order granting Defendant Paris & Paris’s Motion to
Dismiss, and giving Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. On June 27 and 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed
motions to amend/correct the complaint. Because the Court had already granted Plaintiff leave to
amend, the Court issued an order on July 2, 2012 denying the motions as moot and giving Plaintiff
until July 12, 2012 to file an amended complaint. On July 6, 2012, Plaintiff filed an amended
complaint.
On August 7, 2012, Defendant filed a declaration of counsel asking the Court to dismiss
Plaintiff’s complaint because Plaintiff allegedly failed to file an amended complaint by the deadline
of July 12, 2012 and because he allegedly failed to serve initial disclosures. On August 13, 2012,
Plaintiff filed a responsive declaration stating that he filed his amended complaint on July 6, 2012,
and that he served his initial disclosures on June 13, 2012 by mailing them to Defendant.
The Court notes that a declaration of counsel is not the appropriate mechanism to seek
dismissal. Further, it appears that Plaintiff’s July 6, 2012 filing complied with the Court’s order to
file an amended complaint. Plaintiff states also in his declaration that he served initial disclosures

1

on Defendant. Therefore, Defendant’s bases for seeking dismissal are not well-taken. Defendant’s

2

request to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint is denied.

3
4

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 20, 2012
ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE
United States Magistrate Judge

5
6
7
8
9
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2