Miller v. Quartzview, Inc.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 THE ORIGINAL SIXTEEN TO ONE MINE, INC., a California Corporation; 12 MICHAEL MILLER; HUGH DAN No. 2:23-cv-000376-TLN-SCR

O’NEILL III; ROBERT BESSO,

13

JONATHAN FERRELL; TOM

14 WOODFIN; and KEITH ROBERTSON, ORDER

15 Plaintiffs,

16 v. 17 QUARTZVIEW, INC., a California 18 Corporation; ROGER HAAS; SIMON P.

WESTBROOK; DOUGLAS W.

19 CHARLTON; CHARLES CROMPTON JR., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, 20 Defendants, 21

22 23 This matter is before the Court on Defendants Quartzview, Inc. (“Quartzview”), Roger 24 Haas (“Haas”), and Simon P. Westbrook’s (“Westbrook”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to 25 Dismiss.1 (ECF No. 19.) Plaintiffs The Original Sixteen to One Mine, Inc. (“OSTO”), Michael 26 1 The Court notes only Defendants Quartzview, Inc., Roger Haas, and Simon P. Westbrook 27 are parties to the instant motion. Defendants Douglas W. Charlton and Charles Crompton Jr. filed an answer to Plaintiffs’ Complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Thus, when the Court uses “Defendants” 28 in this Order, the Court is referring…