Marotz v. City of San Francisco et al

Filing 56

ORDER. Counsel for the City shall inform the court by January 24, 2014 whether (1) counsel for the City will also be representing the other Defendants, and (2) if so, whether those Defendants wish to rest on arguments presented on their behalf by the City in its motion to dismiss, or intend to file a separate motion to dismiss or responsive pleading. Signed by Magistrate Judge Donna M. Ryu on 01/16/14. (dmrlc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/16/2014) (Additional attachment(s) added on 1/16/2014: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (igS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 WILLIAM LEON MAROTZ, 12 No. C-13-01677 DMR Plaintiff(s), ORDER 13 v. 14 CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO ET AL, 15 Defendant(s). ___________________________________/ 16 17 Pending before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by Defendant City of San Francisco. 18 [Docket No. 26.] In that motion, the City presented arguments for the dismissal of all claims against 19 all Defendants, including the Defendants named in the amended complaint who, at the time the 20 motion was filed, had not yet been served. Plaintiff has subsequently filed proofs of service with the 21 court indicating that those Defendants have been served. [Docket Nos. 53, 54.] 22 Accordingly, counsel for the City shall inform the court by January 24, 2014 whether (1) 23 counsel for the City will also be representing the other Defendants, and (2) if so, whether those 24 Defendants wish to rest on arguments presented on their behalf by the City in its motion to dismiss, 25 or intend to file a separate motion to dismiss or responsive pleading. 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 16, 2014 DONNA M. RYU United States Magistrate 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?