Holland

Holland v. City of San Francisco

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaMarch 21, 20203:19-cv-02545California1,053 words

Opinion

trial_court Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PAUL HOLLAND, et al., Case No. 19-cv-02545-SI 9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT

10 v. ALLIED UNIVERSAL SECURITY

SERVICES’ MOTION TO DISMISS

11 CITY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 37 12 Defendants. 13 14 Defendant Allied Security Services (“Allied”) has filed a motion to dismiss the amended 15 complaint. This case was originally assigned to Magistrate Judge Spero, and the motion to 16 dismiss was noticed on Judge Spero’s calendar for May 1, 2020. On March 17, 2020, this case 17 was reassigned to the undersigned judge. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court 18 determines that the matter is appropriate for resolution without oral argument. For the reasons set 19 forth below, Allied’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is GRANTED in part and 20 DENIED in part. 21 22 BACKGROUND 23 The amended complaint alleges two causes of action against Allied: the ninth cause of 24…

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.