Wescott

Wescott v. Crowe

Good Law
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 28, 20223:20-cv-06456California1,062 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 CARL WESCOTT, Case No. 20-cv-06456-JD

Plaintiff,

ORDER RE MOTIONS TO DISMISS

v. 9 Re: Dkt. Nos. 87, 89 DAVID CROWE, et al., Defendants.

12 Pro se plaintiff Carl Wescott has sued defendants David Crowe, Mike Lyonette, Jeff Rau, Colin Ross, Brad Malcolm, and Michael Jimenez on several California state law claims arising out of a contract to fund the purchase of a resort property in Nicaragua. Dkt. No. 82. Although all defendants are represented by the same counsel, they filed two separate motions to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) that presented nearly identical arguments. One was filed by Rau and was styled as motion for judgment on the pleadings, Dkt. No. 87, 1 and the other was filed on behalf of the remaining defendants under Rule 12(b)(6), Dkt. No. 89. The parties’ familiarity with the record is assumed. The motions are granted in part. The Court declines the requests for judicial notice, Dkt. Nos. 86 and 88. The Court has serious…

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.