Rothschild

Rothschild v. Gildred

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 4, 20253:23-cv-02105California3,890 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 MAYER AMSCHEL ROTHSCHILD, Case No. 23-cv-02105-LJC

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

v. MOTION TO DISMISS

STEPHANIE ANN GILDRED, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 38 Defendants.

12 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Mayer Amschel Rothschild, pro se, brings this action against Defendants Stephanie Gildred and Lorton Management Corporation (Lorton Management), alleging breach of quiet enjoyment, strict liability, negligence and negligence per se claims. ECF No. 12 (First Amended Complaint) (FAC). Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiff’s FAC based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a cause of action. The Court held a hearing on the Motion to Dismiss. ECF No. 54. Having considered the papers submitted by the parties and the oral arguments presented, for the reasons discussed below, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is DENIED and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is…

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.