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).

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