Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03140/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03140-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Breach of Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JAMES W. BOWMAN and PACIFIC REAL

ESTATE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CMC MORTGAGE INC., et al., 

Defendants. /

No. C 07-03140 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND VACATING

HEARING

Defendants have filed a motion to dismiss ten of the twenty-six causes of action alleged in

plaintiff’s complaint. Hearing on the motion is currently scheduled for September 14, 2007. Having

considered the papers submitted, the Court determines that the matter is suitable for resolution without

oral argument, and pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), hereby VACATES the September 14, 2007

hearing. For the following reasons, the Court DENIES defendants’ motion as moot.

Defendants moved to dismiss ten of plaintiff’s causes of action on the grounds that they

impermissibly sought relief for plaintiff Bowman – a Washington resident – under California law. On

August 22, 2007, plaintiff filed an opposition to defendants’ motion, along with a First Amended

Complaint (“FAC”). The FAC adds, for each of the ten claims subject to defendants’ motion to dismiss,

an “alternative” claim under Washington law. See, e.g., FAC ¶¶ 30(a), 56(a). Defendants agree that

the amended complaint “addressed the concerns raised in the 12b(6) motion . . . .” and were “willing

to stipulate to withdrawing the motion and deem the amended complaint the operative pleading.” Reply

at 1:26-28. However, despite repeated attempts, defendants were unable to elicit a response from

Case 3:07-cv-03140-SI Document 21 Filed 09/11/07 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Plaintiff’s counsel has not offered any explanation for her failure to respond to defendants’

offered stipulation. On the current record, such conduct appears to reflect lack of cooperation and

civility. It has also made unnecessary work for both defense counsel and the Court. 

2

plaintiff’s counsel to the offered stipulation.1 

In light of the foregoing, defendants’ motion appears to be moot. Accordingly, the Court

DENIES defendants’ motion to dismiss, and DEEMS plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint the operative

pleading. [Docket No. 6]

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 11, 2007 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03140-SI Document 21 Filed 09/11/07 Page 2 of 2