Fatte Alberts v. Pizzaman's Pavilion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 FATTE ALBERTS, a California No. 1:20-cv-00238-DAD-SKO partnership, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JENSEN’S v. MOTION TO DISMISS 14 PIZZAMAN’S PAVILION and MICHAEL (Doc. No. 20) 15 JENSEN,

16 Defendants. 17 18 This matter is before the court on the motion to dismiss this action for lack of subject 19 matter jurisdiction filed by pro se defendant Michael Jensen. (Doc. No. 20.) Pursuant to General 20 Order No. 617 addressing the public health emergency posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and the 21 outbreak of the virus within this district, defendant Jensen’s motion was taken under submission 22 on the papers. (Doc. No. 23.) For the reasons set forth below, his motion to dismiss will be 23 denied. 24 BACKGROUND 25 Plaintiff Fatte Alberts’ first amended complaint (“FAC”) alleges as follows. Plaintiff is a 26 partnership based in Hanford, California. (Doc. No. 19 (“FAC”) at ¶¶ 3, 6.) Defendant Jensen is 27 an Arizona…