Crosby

Crosby v. Neff

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaFebruary 22, 20241:23-cv-01363California990 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 CURTIS CHARLES CROSBY, Case No. 1:23-cv-01363-CDB

Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

v. (Doc. 15) DONALD CHARLES NEFF,

Defendant. 16 On September 15, 2023, Plaintiff Curtis Charles Crosby (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action with the filing of a complaint against Defendant Donald Charles Neff (“Defendant”). (Doc. 1). Although no cause of action expressly is asserted in the complaint, the allegations appear to advance a claim for negligence relating to an automobile accident between the parties. Id. Pending before the Court is Defendant’s motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), filed January 8, 2024. (Doc. 15). Although Plaintiff was required within 14 days thereafter to file either an opposition or statement of non-opposition, he has filed neither; accordingly, the Court construes Plaintiff’s failure to timely respond to Defendant’s motion as a non-opposition to the motion. See Local…

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.