Gross

Gross v. Stufflebean

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaFebruary 3, 20223:21-cv-02109California969 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 DARO B. GROSS, Case No.: 21-CV-2109 JLS (DEB)

Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS

v. JOCELYN MICHELS

STUFFLEBEAN, JOHN

JOCELYN MICHELS STUFFLEBEAN;

STUFFLEBEAN, DAVID I. GROSS,

JOHN STUFFLEBEAN; DAVID I.

MIEKE STRAND, LAUREN E.

GROSS; MIEKE STRAND; LAUREN E.

JONES, AND BART CALL’S

JONES; JULIE A. AMEDE; JOSEPH F.

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS

DERROUGH; WILLIAM HOYT; and

BART CALL,

(ECF No. 10) 18 Defendants.

Presently before the Court is Defendants Jocelyn Michels Stufflebean, John Stufflebean, David I. Gross, Mieke Strand, Lauren E. Jones, and Bart Call’s (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss (“Mot.,” ECF No. 10). No opposition to the Motion has been filed. See generally Docket. The Ninth Circuit has held that, pursuant to a local rule, a district court may properly grant a motion to dismiss for failure to respond to a motion. See…

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.