Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth

S.D. California

Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth

DecidedJanuary 7, 2022

Docket3:21-cv-00994

StatusUnknown

This text of Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth (Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth, (S.D. Cal. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAGNER AERONAUTICAL, INC.; Case No.: 21cv0994-L-AGS

12 MAMMOTH FREIGHTERS LLC; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 WILLIAM WAGNER; and WILLIAM PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS MOOT 14 TARPLEY,

15 [ECF NO. 96] 16 Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 19 DAVID DOTZENROTH; SEQUOIA 20 AIRCRAFT CONVERSIONS, LLC; CAI 21 CONSULTING LTD; CHARLES WILEY 22 DOTZENROTH; ANDREW MANSELL; 23 STEVEN WELO; and DOES 1 through 24 50 inclusive, 25 Defendants 26 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the 27 Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). [ECF No. 96.] Plaintiff 28 1 || timely filed an amended complaint [ECF No. 132]. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)(B). 2 || "Rule 12(c) is functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6) and ... the same standard of review 3 || applies to motions brought under either rule.” See United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen 4 || Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 5 || marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the Motion for Partial Judgment on the 6 || Pleadings is denied as moot. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 7 || 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 ||Dated: January 7, 2022 fee oop 12 H . James Lorenz, 3 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WAGNER AERONAUTICAL, INC.; Case No.: 21cv0994-L-AGS

12 MAMMOTH FREIGHTERS LLC; ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 13 WILLIAM WAGNER; and WILLIAM PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AS MOOT 14 TARPLEY,

15 [ECF NO. 96] 16 Plaintiffs, 17 vs. 18 19 DAVID DOTZENROTH; SEQUOIA 20 AIRCRAFT CONVERSIONS, LLC; CAI 21 CONSULTING LTD; CHARLES WILEY 22 DOTZENROTH; ANDREW MANSELL; 23 STEVEN WELO; and DOES 1 through 24 50 inclusive, 25 Defendants 26 Pending before the Court is Defendants’ Motion for Partial Judgment on the 27 Pleadings pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). [ECF No. 96.] Plaintiff 28 1 || timely filed an amended complaint [ECF No. 132]. See Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 15(a)(1)(B). 2 || "Rule 12(c) is functionally identical to Rule 12(b)(6) and ... the same standard of review 3 || applies to motions brought under either rule.” See United States ex rel. Cafasso v. Gen 4 || Dynamics C4 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1054 n.4 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation 5 || marks and citations omitted). Accordingly, the Motion for Partial Judgment on the 6 || Pleadings is denied as moot. See Ramirez v. County of San Bernardino, 806 F.3d 1002, 7 || 1008 (9th Cir. 2015). 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. 9 10 ||Dated: January 7, 2022 fee oop 12 H . James Lorenz, 3 United States District Judge

14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wagner-aeronautical-inc-v-dotzenroth-casd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack