ORDER

KIMBERLY J. MUELLER, District Judge.

In light of the court's order granting plaintiff's motion for voluntary dismissal the above-captioned case is ready to be closed. To that end, the court notes that two motions to dismiss, one by plaintiff and one by defendant, were filed several years ago, before the case was closed the first time, ECF No. 259, and plaintiff's subsequent Ninth Circuit appeal was initiated, ECF No. 264. See Pl.'s Mot. to Dismiss Def.'s Counterclaims, ECF No. 226; Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 256. To the extent it is necessary to address these motions before closing the case now, the court does so here.

On September 17, 2012, plaintiff moved to dismiss or strike the counterclaims defendant included in his answer to the third amended complaint, styled as "affirmative answers" and a "prayer" for judgment, ECF No. 222. See Pl.'s Mot. to Dismiss Def.'s Counterclaims. To the extent defendant's statements were intended as counterclaims, they must be dismissed, because they are identical to defendant's original counterclaims, ECF No. 11, which were dismissed with prejudice, ECF No. 33. Accordingly, plaintiff's motion to dismiss at ECF No. 226 is GRANTED.

On February 4, 2013, defendant moved to dismiss plaintiff's claims based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ECF No. 256. Two days later, he filed a response to plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, in which he included the same motion to dismiss arguments, and noted the filing "amended doc. 256," his motion to dismiss. ECF No. 258. The motion to dismiss, with or without this later amendment, is now moot, given the court's order dismissing plaintiff's claims, ECF No. 339. Accordingly, defendant's motion to dismiss at ECF No. 256 is DENIED.

For the foregoing reasons, it is hereby ORDERED: