Wilson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL GEARY WILSON, Case No. 20-cv-00381-PJH Plaintiff,

v. ORDER RE: DEFENDANTS’ ANSWER

KARL CURTIS ROGER RIDGEWAY, et Re: Dkt. No. 23 al., 11 Defendants.

13 The court is in receipt of defendants’ filing, which they style as “The Defendant’s Answer to the Complaint.” Dkt. 23. In it, they argue that the “Court does not have proper jurisdiction over the defendants, as we are citizens of South Carolina.” Id. ¶ 7 (emphasis omitted). Defendants also state that they “motion [sic] that the third and only claim be dismissed with prejudice.” Id. ¶ 12. The court construes this filing as a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. 7, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. In response to defendants’ answer, plaintiff Wilson has filed an opposition in which he raises various procedural objections based on, for example, the fact that defendants label their filing an answer…