CALIP v. TANIGAWA, 15-cv-02111-MMC. (2016)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20161128915
Visitors: 8
Filed: Nov. 23, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 23, 2016
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANT HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DEFENDANT MARY TANIGAWA'S MOTION TO DISMISS MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court are two motions: (1) defendant Housing Authority of the County of Alameda's ("HACA") "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings," filed September 7, 2016; and (2) defendant Mary Tanigawa's ("Tanigawa") "Motion to Dismiss Entire Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (F.R.C.P.
Summary: ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANT HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DEFENDANT MARY TANIGAWA'S MOTION TO DISMISS MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . Before the Court are two motions: (1) defendant Housing Authority of the County of Alameda's ("HACA") "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings," filed September 7, 2016; and (2) defendant Mary Tanigawa's ("Tanigawa") "Motion to Dismiss Entire Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (F.R.C.P. ..
More
ORDER VACATING HEARING ON DEFENDANT HOUSING AUTHORITY OF COUNTY OF ALAMEDA'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND DEFENDANT MARY TANIGAWA'S MOTION TO DISMISS
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
Before the Court are two motions: (1) defendant Housing Authority of the County of Alameda's ("HACA") "Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings," filed September 7, 2016; and (2) defendant Mary Tanigawa's ("Tanigawa") "Motion to Dismiss Entire Action for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (F.R.C.P. 12(b)(1)," filed October 28, 2016.1 Plaintiff has not filed opposition to either motion.2
Having read and considered the papers filed in support of the motions, the Court deems the matters suitable for decision thereon, and VACATES the hearing scheduled for December 2, 2016.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. On October 28, 2016, Tanigawa also filed a "Notice of Joinder" in HACA's motion.
2. Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this District, any opposition was due "not more than 14 days after the motion was filed." See Civil L. R. 7-3(a). On November 21, 2016, plaintiff filed a letter addressed to the Court. Irrespective of whether such filing was proper, said letter does not address the instant motions.
Source: Leagle
