Douglas Harp et al v. Converium Insurance Inc et al
Filing
15
ORDER DENYING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss as Moot 10 by Judge Otis D Wright II. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint. Consequently, the Court DENIES Defendants Motion to Dismiss as moot. The June 18, 2012 hearing on this matter is VACATED, and no appearances are necessary. (sch)
<![CDATA[
O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
DOUGLAS HARP, a California resident;
LEADING EDGE TRUCKING, INC., a
California Corporation; CHRIS WEEMS,
a California resident; and RONALD
WEEMS, a California resident,
v.
Case No. 5:12-cv-00760-ODW(DTBx)
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
[10]
Plaintiffs,
CONVERIUM INSURANCE INC., a
Nebraska Corporation; FINIAL
REINSURANCE COMPANY, a
Connecticut Corporation; and DOES 1–
100, inclusive,
Defendants.
19
20
On March 27, 2012, Plaintiffs Douglas Harp; Leading Edge Trucking, Inc.;
21
Chris Weems; and Ronald Weems filed a Complaint alleging claims for breach of the
22
implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract, and declaratory
23
relief against Defendants Converium Insurance Inc. and Finial Reinsurance Co. in Los
24
Angeles Superior Court for the County of Riverside. (See ECF No. 1.) On May 10,
25
2012, Defendant removed the action to this Court. (Id.)
26
On May 17, 2012, Finial filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint. (ECF
27
No. 10.) Thereafter, on May 25, 2012, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint as a
28
matter of course in compliance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(1)(B).
1
(ECF. No. 14.) Consequently, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss as
2
moot. The June 18, 2012 hearing on this matter is VACATED, and no appearances
3
are necessary.
4
5
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6
7
May 29, 2012
8
9
10
____________________________________
HON. OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
