Matoza v. Automobile Protection Corporation, 17-cv-01971-MMC. (2019)
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Number: infdco20190903c25
Visitors: 21
Filed: Aug. 30, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 30, 2019
Summary: ORDER CONDITIONALLY CLOSING CASE MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed October 2, 2017, the Court stayed plaintiff's claims against defendants Automobile Protection Corporation and Warranty Support Services, LLC, pending the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. As plaintiff's claims against all other defendants have been dismissed, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-titled action is CLOSED for statistical purposes only. Said closure shall not be considered a dismissal or di
Summary: ORDER CONDITIONALLY CLOSING CASE MAXINE M. CHESNEY , District Judge . By order filed October 2, 2017, the Court stayed plaintiff's claims against defendants Automobile Protection Corporation and Warranty Support Services, LLC, pending the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. As plaintiff's claims against all other defendants have been dismissed, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-titled action is CLOSED for statistical purposes only. Said closure shall not be considered a dismissal or dis..
More
ORDER CONDITIONALLY CLOSING CASE
MAXINE M. CHESNEY, District Judge.
By order filed October 2, 2017, the Court stayed plaintiff's claims against defendants Automobile Protection Corporation and Warranty Support Services, LLC, pending the conclusion of arbitration proceedings. As plaintiff's claims against all other defendants have been dismissed, it is hereby ORDERED that the above-titled action is CLOSED for statistical purposes only. Said closure shall not be considered a dismissal or disposition of plaintiff's claims against Automobile Protection Corporation or Warranty Support Services, LLC. Should further proceedings become necessary herein, any party may initiate them in the same manner as if this order of closure had not been entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
