1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 THOMAS JOSEPH GODDARD, Case No. 25-cv-06187-JSC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER RE: SLICKDEAL’S MOTION 9 v. TO DISMISS AND PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 10 SLICKDEALS, LLC, and APPLE INC., JUDGMENT 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. Nos. 35, 38

12 13 Mr. Goddard sues Slickdeals, LLC (“Slickdeals”) and Apple Inc. (“Apple”). (Dkt. No. 1.) 14 After Apple moved to dismiss, Mr. Goddard moved for leave to file a second amended complaint. 15 (Dkt. Nos. 15, 18.) On October 21, 2025, the Court issued an order granting Apple’s motion to 16 dismiss and denying Mr. Goddard’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. 17 No. 32.) In addition, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 20(a)(2) and 21, the Court 18 dismissed Mr. Goddard’s claims against Slickdeals as improperly joined without prejudice to Mr. 19 Goddard filing those claims in a separate complaint. (Id. at 15-16.) 20 Later that day, Slickdeals filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Goddard’s claims against it 21 pursuant to Colorado River Water Conservation District v. United States,

(1976), or, 22 in the alternative, for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). 23 (Dkt. No. 35.) The Court DENIES Slickdeals’s motion to dismiss as moot in light of its October 24 21 order. 25 Then, on October 22, 2025, Mr. Goddard filed an emergency motion for summary 26 judgment. (Dkt. No. 38.) The Court’s October 21 order dismissed Mr. Goddard’s complaint and 27 denied Mr. Goddard leave to file a second amended complaint. (Dkt. No. 32.) The order also 1 Ud. at 16-17.) Because Mr. Goddard does not currently have an operative complaint before the 2 || Court upon which to seek judgment, the Court DENIES Mr. Goddard’s emergency motion for 3 summary judgment. 4 This Order disposes of Docket Nos. 35 and 38. 5 IT IS SO ORDERED. 6 Dated: October 22, 2025 7 g ne JAQQUELINE SCOTT CORL 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28