Watkins

Watkins v. Westin

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaOctober 8, 20211:21-cv-01348California817 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL W. WATKINS, Case No. 1:21-cv-01348-NONE-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

RESPOND TO MOTION TO AMEND

v. COMPLAINT

WILLIAM WESTIN, et al., (ECF No. 25)

Defendants. SEVEN DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Michael Watkins (“Plaintiff”), proceeding in this matter pro se, initiated this action on April 30, 2021, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee in Knoxville. (ECF No. 1.) On July 28, 2021, Defendants William Westin, Edward Miliam and Joe Banuelos moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and (3). (ECF No. 11.) On August 26, 2021, the Tennessee Court granted Defendants’ motion and the case was subsequently transferred to the Eastern District of California on September 9, 2021. (ECF Nos. 14, 15, 16.) To date, Defendants have not filed an answer or other responsive pleading with respect to the…

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.