Wong v. McHugh et.al.

Filing 44

ORDER by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denying 23 Motion to Dismiss as Moot. The Hearing set for August 18, 2015 is therefore vacated. (fs, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/29/2015)

Download PDF
1 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 4 5 CONNIE WONG, Case No. 15-cv-01127-YGR Plaintiff, 6 v. ORDER DENYING MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT 7 8 JOHN M. MCHUGH, SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ET AL., 9 Defendants. 10 Re: Dkt. Nos. 23, 38 The initial complaint in this action was filed on March 16, 2015. (Dkt. No. 1 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 (“Complaint”).) On May 21, 2015, defendants Michigan Department of Military and Veterans 12 Affairs and Gregory Vadnais (“Michigan Defendants”) filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. 13 (Dkt. No. 23.) Plaintiff filed an opposition thereto on June 11, 2015. (Dkt. No. 34.) Thereafter, 14 on July 9, 2015, defendants Deborah Lee James, John M. McHugh, David S. Baldwin, Matthew 15 Beevers, Jon K. Kelk, Randall Ball, Nathaniel S. Reddicks, Steven Butow, Thomas Keegan, 16 William Martin, Sean Maltbie, Ronald W. Wilson, and the California Military Department 17 (“Federal Defendants”) also filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint. (Dkt. No. 38.) 18 On July 23, 2015, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of 19 Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B). (Dkt. No. 40 (“FAC”).) Thereafter, the Federal Defendants filed a 20 notice of withdrawal of their motion to dismiss. (Dkt. No. 43.) The Michigan Defendants have 21 yet to file such a notice. In light of the filing of the FAC, the Michigan Defendants’ Motion to 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dismiss is DENIED as moot. The hearing set for August 18, 2015 is therefore VACATED. This Order terminates Docket Number 23. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 29, 2015 ______________________________________ YVONNE GONZALEZ ROGERS UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 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?