Hogan

Hogan v. Mohlenbrok

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaMarch 5, 20252:24-cv-03566California818 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RU HOGAN, No. 2:24-cv-03566-JAM-SCR Plaintiff, v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO STRIKE

CITY OF ROCKLIN, and DOES

THROUGH 100,

15 Defendants. 16 Before the Court is City of Rocklin’s (“Defendant”) motion to strike three causes of action in Ru Hogan’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). See Mot., ECF No. 12. Plaintiff has failed to file a timely opposition to Defendant’s motion. Pursuant to Local Rule 230(c), the Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to oppose as a non-opposition to the motion. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion. California Code of Civil Procedure provides, “A cause of action against a person arising from any act of that person in furtherance of the person’s right of petition or free speech under the United States Constitution or the California Constitution in connection with a public issue shall be subject to a special motion to strike, unless the court…

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.