Opinion
3:21-cv-1692 W (WVG)
04-13-2022
NEW YORK MARINE AND GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York corporation, Plaintiff, v. DAVID M. PETERS, a California citizen, Defendant. DAVID M. PETERS, a California citizen, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL D. BRESLAUER, et al. Third-Party Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING THIRD-PARTY DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THIRD-PARTY PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND [DOC. 11]
Hon. Thomas J. Whelan, United States District Judge.
Pending before the Court is Third-Party Defendants Michael D. Breslauer and Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP's (collectively, “Third-Party Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff David M. Peters' Third-Party Complaint. (Mot. [Doc. 11].) Third-Party Defendants argue that Peters' Complaint should be dismissed for three reasons: (1) for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); (2) because the Complaint is subject to absolute quasi-judicial immunity; and (3) because the Complaint is subject to California's anti-SLAPP statute. (Id. at 2.) Peters filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss but only addressed Third-Party Defendants' anti-SLAPP argument. (Opp'n [Doc. 29].) Having failed to oppose Third-Party Defendants' first two grounds for dismissal, Peters concedes that his Complaint fails to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and that his Complaint is subject to judicial immunity. See Marziano v. Cnty. of Marin, 2010 WL 3895528, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010) (ruling that plaintiff's failure to oppose defendant's argument amounts to a concession that the claim should be dismissed); Hall v. Mortgage Investors Grp., 2011 WL 4374995, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2011) (failing to oppose an argument concedes the truth of the argument); In re Univ. of S. Cal. Tuition and Fees COVID-19 Refund Litig., 2021 WL 3560783, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021) (finding same).
The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R. 7.1(d)(1).
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Third-Party Defendants' Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [Doc. 11]. Third-Party Defendants' request to strike Peters' Complaint on anti-SLAPP grounds is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.