Miller v. Quartzview, Inc.
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
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, AMENDED ORDER 15 Plaintiffs, 16 v. 17 QUARTZVIEW, INC., a California 18 Corporation; ROGER HAAS; SIMON P.
WESTBROOK; DOUGLAS W.
19 CHARLTON; 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 27 1 Defendant Douglas W. Charlton (“Charlton”) filed a notice of joinder to the instant motion to dismiss. (ECF Nos. 20, 24.) When the Court uses “Defendants” in this Order, the 28 Court is referring to Defendants Quartzview, Haas, Westbrook, and Charlton. 1 Miller, Hugh Dan O’Neill III, Robert Besso, Jonathan Ferrell, Tom…