Rutledge

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 NATHANAEL RUTLEDGE, Case No.: 22-cv-898-L-BLM

Plaintiff,

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

v. COMBINED SPECIAL MOTION TO

STRIKE, REQUEST FOR

ADP, INC.,

ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS,

Defendant. AND MOTION TO DISMISS

11 [ECF No. 23] 12 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Nathanael Rutledge’s (“Rutledge”) combined special motion to strike, request for attorneys’ fees and costs, and motion to dismiss Defendant ADP, Inc.’s (“ADP”) counterclaims. (ECF No. 23.) ADP opposed, (ECF No. 28), and Rutledge replied, (ECF No. 29). The Court has jurisdiction over the present matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and decides the matter on the papers submitted without oral argument. See Civ. L. R. 7.1(d.1). For the reasons stated below, the motion to strike is denied, the request for attorneys’ fees and costs is denied, and the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part. I. BACKGROUND According to ADP’s…