Watters
Watters v. Breja
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 ANDREW G. WATTERS, Case No. 23-cv-03183-HSG
8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
BREJA’S MOTION TO DISMISS AND
9 v. TERMINATING AS MOOT
DEFENDANT JP MORGAN CHASE’S
10 SIDDHARTH BREJA, et al., MOTION TO DISMISS 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 30, 33
12 13 Pending before the Court are motions to dismiss filed by Nominal Defendant JP Morgan 14 Chase, Inc. (Dkt. No. 30) and Defendant Siddharth Breja (Dkt. No. 33). The Court finds this 15 matter appropriate for disposition without oral argument and the matter is deemed submitted. See 16 Civil L.R. 7-1(b). For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Defendant Breja’s 17 motion, Dkt. No. 33, TERMINATES AS MOOT JP Morgan Chase Inc.’s motion, Dkt. No. 30, 18 and DISMISSES the complaint with leave to amend. 19 I. INTRODUCTION 20 On June 27, 2023, Plaintiff Andrew Watters (or “Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against 21 Siddharth Breja, also naming American Express (“AmEx”) and…