U.S. v. PROVOST, 1:11-cv-2080 LJO DLB (2012)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20120412e82
Visitors: 11
Filed: Apr. 12, 2012
Latest Update: Apr. 12, 2012
Summary: ORDER DENYING RELIEF DOC. 16 LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. On April 4, 2012, Defendant Andre Paul Provost, Jr. ("Defendant") filed papers titled "Answer to Complaint, Motion to Dismiss." ECF. No. 16. The papers again challenge this Court's jurisdiction and the United States attorney's validity in participating in this case. Id. at 1-5. As set out in the Court's Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, the Court finds these arguments meritless. ECF. No. 18, Order at 2-5. Further, Defend
Summary: ORDER DENYING RELIEF DOC. 16 LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge. On April 4, 2012, Defendant Andre Paul Provost, Jr. ("Defendant") filed papers titled "Answer to Complaint, Motion to Dismiss." ECF. No. 16. The papers again challenge this Court's jurisdiction and the United States attorney's validity in participating in this case. Id. at 1-5. As set out in the Court's Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, the Court finds these arguments meritless. ECF. No. 18, Order at 2-5. Further, Defenda..
More
ORDER DENYING RELIEF DOC. 16
LAWRENCE J. O'NEILL, District Judge.
On April 4, 2012, Defendant Andre Paul Provost, Jr. ("Defendant") filed papers titled "Answer to Complaint, Motion to Dismiss." ECF. No. 16. The papers again challenge this Court's jurisdiction and the United States attorney's validity in participating in this case. Id. at 1-5. As set out in the Court's Order Re: Plaintiff's Motion to Strike, the Court finds these arguments meritless. ECF. No. 18, Order at 2-5. Further, Defendant's motion is filed late. See Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 12(a)(1)(A). The Court DENIES Defendant's "motion to dismiss."1
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Defendant also asserts that his debt to the United States "was discharged March 12th, 2012" via an "Electronic Funds Transfer instrument." ECF No. 16 at 5. The Court construes this as a denial via an Answer. Fed. R. C. Pro. 8(b)(1). This assertion is not a reason to grant dismissal. The Complaint "contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim'" that a debt is owed by Defendant. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). Defendant's denial regarding that debt does not warrant dismissal.
Source: Leagle
