United States of America v. Hatfield, 5:17-cv-121. (2017)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20171026e97
Visitors: 8
Filed: Oct. 25, 2017
Latest Update: Oct. 25, 2017
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer, which is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court has considered defendant's motion and reviewed the pleadings, including defendant's supporting Memorandum of Law (#5-1), the government's Memorandum in Opposition (#8), and the defendant's Reply (#9). Based on that review, the Court determines that the government has stated viable claims that are n
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr. , District Judge . THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer, which is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court has considered defendant's motion and reviewed the pleadings, including defendant's supporting Memorandum of Law (#5-1), the government's Memorandum in Opposition (#8), and the defendant's Reply (#9). Based on that review, the Court determines that the government has stated viable claims that are no..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer, which is a Rule 12(b)(6) motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The Court has considered defendant's motion and reviewed the pleadings, including defendant's supporting Memorandum of Law (#5-1), the government's Memorandum in Opposition (#8), and the defendant's Reply (#9). Based on that review, the Court determines that the government has stated viable claims that are not time barred, and enters the following Order denying the motion for the reasons set forth in the government's Memorandum in Opposition.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss in Lieu of Answer (#5) is DENIED. Defendant shall Answer the Complaint within 14 days.
Source: Leagle
