Canatella

Canatella v. Stovitz

Good Law
365 F. Supp. 2d 1064·2005 WL 937781·2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5976
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaFebruary 16, 2005C 00-01105 JSWCalifornia9,522 words

Opinion

Opinion

White, J.

ORDER RE BAR DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

Now before the Court are the motions of Defendants Ronald W. Stovitz, Judith A. Epstein, Madge S. Watai, Richard A. Honn, Patrice E. McElroy, Alban I. Niles, Joann M. Remke, Robert M. Talcott, James E. Herman and Michael Nisperos, Jr.’s (collectively “Bar Defendants”) to dismiss Plaintiff Richard A. Canatella’s (“Canatella”) Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of standing.

Having carefully reviewed the parties’ papers and considered their arguments and relevant legal authority, and good cause appearing, the Court hereby DENIES the Bar Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing and GRANTS the Bar Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) with prejudice.

BACKGROUND FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Canatella has practiced law in California since 1972. He is licensed to practice in California and the District of Columbia, and is a member of the bars of the Northern and Central districts of California, the Ninth Circuit…

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.