Matoza v. Thor Motor Coach, Inc. et al

Filing 70

ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S EX PARTE APPLICATIONS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 08/16/17. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/16/2017) (Additional attachment(s) added on 8/16/2017: # 1 Certificate/Proof 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 10 HENRY MATOZA, Plaintiff, United States District Court Northern District of California 11 v. 12 13 Case No. 17-cv-01971-MMC ORDER DENYING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE APPLICATIONS THOR INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. 14 Re: Dkt. Nos. 66, 67 15 16 Before the Court are two ex parte applications, both filed August 10, 2017, by 17 plaintiff Henry Matoza (“Matoza”): (1) an application to compel defendants Automobile 18 Protection Corporation (“APCO”), APCO Holdings, Inc., Ontario Teachers’ Pension Plan 19 Inc. (“OTTP”), and Warranty Support Services, LLC (“WSSL”) to file Certifications of 20 Interested Entities or Persons, see Civil L.R. 3-15(a), and (2) an application to strike 21 APCO Holdings, Inc. and OTTP’s motions to dismiss in light of their failure to file the 22 above-referenced certifications. 23 That same date, however, defendants APCO, APCO Holdings, LLC,1 OTTP, and 24 WSSL each filed a Certification of Interested Parties or Persons. (See Dkt. Nos. 62-65.) 25 26 27 28 1 In the caption of his First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), plaintiff names as two separate defendants APCO Holdings, Inc. and APCO Holdings, LLC. (See FAC at 1.) In the body of the FAC, however, he alleges APCO Holdings, LLC “is also known as APCO Holdings, Inc.” (See id. ¶ 10d.) 1 Accordingly, Matoza’s applications are hereby DENIED as moot. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 5 Dated: August 16, 2017 MAXINE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?