UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BRIAN WHITAKER, Case No. 21-cv-07436-AGT Plaintiff, ORDER STRIKING MOTION TO V. DISMISS PAMELA CHAU, Re: Dkt. No. 17 Defendant. In her answer to the complaint, the defendant included a “motion to dismiss for mootness and motion to deny supplemental jurisdiction.” Dkt. 17 at 1 (capitalization omitted). Combining the answer and motion in this way makes the docket difficult to follow and doesn’t comport with the federal rules, which distinguish between “motions and other papers” and “pleadings,” with the latter category including “an answer to a complaint.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(2), (b)(2). To alleviate confusion, the Court will now strike the motion from the answer. If the defendant seeks to renew arguments made in her combined filing, she may do so by properly noticing a motion that complies with federal and local rules. If she intends to file such a motion and to renew her argument that the Court should decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiff's Unruh Act claim, she should address Arroyo v. Rosas,

(9th Cir. 2021), a recent opinion that is relevant to that argument. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 4, 2022 Alex G. Tse United States Magistrate Judge