Wagner Aeronautical, Inc. v. Dotzenroth

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