City of Oakland v. BP P.L.C., C 17-06011 WHA (2018)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20180626999
Visitors: 6
Filed: Jun. 25, 2018
Latest Update: Jun. 25, 2018
Summary: REQUEST FOR JOINT STATEMENT RE PENDING FRCP 12(b)(2) MOTIONS WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In light of today's order granting defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), by JULY 2 AT NOON, the parties shall submit a joint statement regarding whether it remains necessary to reach the narrowed FRCP 12(b)(2) motions (which narrowing is appreciated). While the Court remains willing to decide the FRCP 12(b)(2) issue, counsel may prefer to postpone such a ruling until after app
Summary: REQUEST FOR JOINT STATEMENT RE PENDING FRCP 12(b)(2) MOTIONS WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . In light of today's order granting defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), by JULY 2 AT NOON, the parties shall submit a joint statement regarding whether it remains necessary to reach the narrowed FRCP 12(b)(2) motions (which narrowing is appreciated). While the Court remains willing to decide the FRCP 12(b)(2) issue, counsel may prefer to postpone such a ruling until after appe..
More
REQUEST FOR JOINT STATEMENT RE PENDING FRCP 12(b)(2) MOTIONS
WILLIAM ALSUP, District Judge.
In light of today's order granting defendants' motions to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 12(b)(6), by JULY 2 AT NOON, the parties shall submit a joint statement regarding whether it remains necessary to reach the narrowed FRCP 12(b)(2) motions (which narrowing is appreciated). While the Court remains willing to decide the FRCP 12(b)(2) issue, counsel may prefer to postpone such a ruling until after appellate review of the FRCP 12(b)(6) and no-remand orders.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
