" Whiting v. Hogan, 855 F. Supp. 2d 1266, 1289 (D.N.M. 2012) (citing R.B. ex rel. Parent v. Mastery Charter Sch., 762 F. Supp. 2d 745, 754 (E.D. Pa. 2010) ("Because the complaint makes no claims against the School District, its Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim is hereby GRANTED."); Flaherty v. Massapequa Pub. Schs., 752 F. Supp. 2d 286, 299 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) ("Similarly, as the plaintiff has asserted no causes of action against named defendant Marianne Fisher, she is also terminated as a defendant."); Jones v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 09-4313, 2010 WL 551418, at *10 (N.D. Ill. Feb. 11, 2010) ("Defendants 'Does 1-10' are alleged to be individuals who otherwise 'engaged in or aided and abetted' the wrongdoing alleged in the First Amended Complaint. . . . Jones has stated no claims against individual defendants in the First Amended Complaint. Defendants Does 1-10 are therefore dismissed."); Shook v. Shook, No. 5:06cv76, 2007 WL 2491327, at *16 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2007) ("While plaintiff named Western Surety in her Amended Complaint, she has asserted no claims against such defendant . . . . [T]he court will dismiss Western Surety with prejudice from this action inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable claims against it.")); see also Chavez v. Chenoweth, 553 P.2d 803, 708 (N.M. Ct. App. 1976) (affirming dismissal of defendant where defendant "show[ed] up in the pleadings only as a name included in the prayer" for relief). Because Plaintiff failed to state any causes of action against Defendant H&W, the Court will dismiss it from this action. IV. Order to Show Cause

”); Jones v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 09–4313, 2010 WL 551418, at *10 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 11, 2010) (“Defendants ‘Does 1–10’ are alleged to be individuals who otherwise ‘engaged in or aided and abetted’ the wrongdoing alleged in the First Amended Complaint.... Jones has stated no claims against individual defendants in the First Amended Complaint. Defendants Does 1–10 are therefore dismissed.”); Shook v. Shook, No. 5:06cv76, 2007 WL 2491327, at *16 (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 2007) (“While plaintiff named Western Surety in her Amended Complaint, she has asserted no claims against such defendant.... [T]he court will dismiss Western Surety with prejudice from this action inasmuch as plaintiff has failed to state any cognizable claims against it.”). Here, the Plaintiffs have alleged no causes of action against Hanover Insurance under New Mexico or Arizona law, see Tr. at 17:18–19 (Eden), and cannot proceed against it under MFRA or Arizona's Motor Carrier Insurance Act.