Hogan v. Safeway et al

Filing 38

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS 27 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT. Signed by Judge Jeremy Fogel on June 23, 2011. (jflc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/23/2011)

Download PDF
1 2 **E-Filed 6/23/2011** 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SAN JOSE DIVISION 11 LESTER HOGAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 15 16 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 ORDER1 RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT v. [Re: Docket No. 27] SAFEWAY STORES, a California corporation; LOCAL 5 of the UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS UNION, an unincorporated association, Defendants. 17 18 Case Number 5:10-cv-04262-JF/PSG This case arises out of the alleged wrongful termination of Plaintiff Lester Hogan by Defendant Safeway Stores (“Safeway”). Hogan, a former union member, alleges that Defendant United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Local 5 (the “Union”) provided him inadequate representation by refusing to pursue arbitration of his grievance against Safeway. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Union moved to dismiss Hogan’s first amended complaint on March 17, 2011. The Court heard oral argument on May 6, 2011, and indicated orally that it would grant the motion, with leave to amend. In light of the fact that Hogan now has filed a second amended complaint and Defendants have answered that pleading, the motion is now moot, and the Court will not issue a formal order. 27 28 1 This disposition is not designated for publication in the official reports. Case No. 5:10-cv-04262-JF/PSG ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (JFLC1) 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 3 DATED: June 23, 2011 ___________________________ JEREMY FOGEL United States District Court 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 Case No. 5:10-cv-04262-JF/PSG ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT (JFLC1)

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?