DeNucci v. Aflac

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 Peter DENUCCI, Case No.: 25-cv-0540-AGS-DDL 4 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF 4), 5 v. VACATING HEARING, AND 6 AFLAC, CLOSING CASE 7 Defendant. 8 9 Plaintiff Peter DeNucci filed a state-court complaint alleging the “wrongful denial 10 of long-term disability (LTD) benefits under an insurance policy issued by Aflac.” (See 11 ECF 1-3, at 5.) Defendant Aflac removed to federal court and moved to dismiss for lack of 12 personal jurisdiction and failure to state a claim, arguing primarily that it was not subject 13 to California state jurisdiction nor was it the insurer or processor of DeNucci’s long-term 14 disability benefits. (See generally ECF 4.) The Court ordered DeNucci to file “any response 15 to the pending motion to dismiss” by “May 30, 2025.” (ECF 5.) To date, he has filed 16 nothing; indeed, he has not participated in this suit since its removal to federal court. 17 When “a plaintiff fails to defend [a] cause of action in opposition to a motion to 18 dismiss,” the court may find that claim waived. Hadley v. Kellogg Sales Co., 19 243 F. Supp. 3d 1074, 1100 (N.D. Cal. 2017). Because defendant moved to dismiss all 20 DeNucci’s claims and DeNucci failed to oppose any of those grounds, he waived all his 21 causes of action. Moreover, DeNucci has not rebutted defendant’s argument that it is not 22 subject to this Court’s personal jurisdiction, despite bearing the burden to make that 23 showing once challenged. See, e.g., San Diego Cnty. Credit Union v. Citizens Equity First 24 Credit Union, 65 F.4th 1012, 1035 (9th Cir. 2023) (holding that plaintiff “bears the burden 25 of proving the first two prongs” of the specific personal jurisdiction test, including “(1) the 26 defendant performed an act or consummated a transaction by which it purposely directed 27 its activity toward the forum state” and “(2) the claims arose out of defendant's forum- 28 related activities”). Based on waiver and on the merits, defendant’s unopposed motion is | ||}GRANTED, DeNucci’s complaint is DISMISSED with leave to amend, and the 2 ||upcoming June 13, 2025 hearing is VACATED. The Clerk must close this case. 3 If by July 10, 2025, plaintiff DeNucci files an amended complaint addressing the 4 ||issues identified by defendant, the Court will automatically reopen and resume this case. 5 || Any amended complaint must be complete by itself without reference to any previous 6 || version of that pleading; defendants not named and any claims not re-alleged in the 7 |}amended complaint will be considered waived. See S.D. Cal. CivLR 15.1. 8 || Dated: June 5, 2025 10 Hon. rew G. Schopler United States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28