Asman
(PS) Schmitz v. Asman
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
Case 2:20-cv-00195-JAM-CKD Document 85 Filed 11/16/20 Page 1 of 47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 THOMAS SCHMITZ, et al., No. 2:20-cv-00195-JAM-CKD PS 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER AND FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
14 A. ASMAN, et al., (ECF Nos. 63, 64) 15 Defendants. 16
17 Presently before the court are defendants’ motions to partially dismiss the Second
18 Amended Complaint (ECF No. 44), to which plaintiffs have responded and defendants have
19 replied.1 (ECF Nos. 63, 64, 65, 68, 70, 75, 76-79.) These motions were taken under submission
20 pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (ECF No. 82.) As set forth below, the court DENIES IN PART
21 and recommends GRANTING IN PART defendants’ motions to dismiss.
22 ////
23 ////
24 ////
25 ////
26 1 27 Plaintiffs are proceeding pro se, and this action is before the undersigned pursuant to Eastern District of California Local Rule 302(c)(21). 28 1 Case…