Lily

Lily v. Rosenow

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaSeptember 20, 20243:23-cv-00644California4,147 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 14 “LILY,” “SARAH,” JANE ROE Case No.: 23-cv-00644-WQH-DEB as next friend for “PIA,” a minor, ORDER Plaintiffs, v. CARSTEN IGOR ROSENOW, a/k/a CARLOS SENTA, Defendant. 21

23 HAYES, Judge: 24 The matters before the Court are the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, Partial 25 Summary Dismissal and Affirmative Plea (ECF No. 21) and the Motion to Dismiss the 26 FAC Complaint, Partial Summary Dismissal and Affirmative Plea (ECF No. 23) filed by 27 Defendant Carsten Igor Rosenow. 28 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND On April 7, 2023, Plaintiffs “Lily,” “Sarah,” and Jane Roe as next friend for “Pia” (“Plaintiffs”) initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Defendant Carston Igor Rosenow (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 1.) On July 13, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), which is the operative pleading. (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiffs seek liquidated damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2255, which provides a civil remedy for…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.