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)
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?