Annika Peacock, et al. v. William Hulett
District Court, E.D. California
1Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANNIKA PEACOCK, et al., Case No. 2:26-cv-1775-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER 14 WILLIAM HULETT, 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiffs Annika Peacock and Michael Peacock bring this action against defendant 18 William Hulett.1 Plaintiffs do not plausibly plead diversity jurisdiction, and they also have not 19 articulated a cognizable claim. I will dismiss the complaint and give plaintiffs an opportunity to 20 remedy the deficiencies identified below. I will also grant plaintiffs’ applications to proceed…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Ivey v. Board of Regents of University of AlaskaCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1982
- Bartlett v. StricklandSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Connie A. Nagrampa v. Mailcoups, Inc. The American Arbitration AssociationCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2006
- Michael Hayes v. Idaho Correctional CenterCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2017
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.