Andrew Mattioda v. Jim Bridenstine

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 ANDREW MATTIODA, Case No. 20-cv-03662-SVK

Plaintiff, ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS

SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;

v. SETTING INITIAL CASE

MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE

JIM BRIDENSTINE, et al., Re: Dkt. No. 27 Defendants.

On January 8, 2021, the Court issued an Order on Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, which denied Defendants’ motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss the FAC under Rule 12(b)(6). Dkt. 24 (the “January 8 Order”). The Court gave Plaintiff leave to amend the FAC to address certain of the deficiencies identified in the January 8 Order. Id. Plaintiff then filed the Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. 26 (“SAC”). Now before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss the SAC (Dkt. 27). Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b),…