New York Marine and General Insurance Company v. Peters

District Court, S.D. California · 3:21-cv-01692 · 2022-04-13 · Unknown

Proceeding: district
Area: civil
Panel: Thomas J. Whelan (author)

Analysis

A model's reading — qwen3.8-27b, prompt own-v1, 2026-10-13T22:32Z · confidence high

Third-Party Defendants moved to dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff Peters' Third-Party Complaint on three grounds: failure to state a claim, quasi-judicial immunity, and anti-SLAPP. The court granted the motion to dismiss without leave to amend based on Peters' failure to oppose the first two grounds, which the court treated as concessions, and dismissed the anti-SLAPP request as moot.

What the court decided	The model
Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint granted without leave to amend “Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Third-Party Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [Doc. 11].”	agree with court The court relied on the procedural posture that Peters failed to oppose the first two grounds (Rule 12(b)(6) and judicial immunity) in his opposition brief. The court cited district court cases (Marziano, Hall, In re Univ. of S. Cal.) establishing that failure to oppose an argument amounts to a concession. While treating unopposed arguments as conceded is a common judicial practice to manage docket efficiency, it is a procedural shortcut rather than a substantive legal determination. However, given the explicit citation to local/district precedent supporting this approach and the fact that the plaintiff had the opportunity to brief these issues but chose not to, the decision follows from the procedural record and cited authorities.
Request to strike on anti-SLAPP grounds dismissed as moot “Third-Party Defendants’ request to strike Peters’ Complaint on anti-SLAPP grounds is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”	agree with court Because the complaint was dismissed in its entirety based on the conceded grounds, the alternative argument regarding anti-SLAPP immunity became unnecessary to resolve. Dismissing a redundant or alternative ground as moot after the primary ground succeeds is standard and correct.

What the court decided

The model

Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Complaint granted without leave to amend

“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Third-Party Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [Doc. 11].”

agree with court
The court relied on the procedural posture that Peters failed to oppose the first two grounds (Rule 12(b)(6) and judicial immunity) in his opposition brief. The court cited district court cases (Marziano, Hall, In re Univ. of S. Cal.) establishing that failure to oppose an argument amounts to a concession. While treating unopposed arguments as conceded is a common judicial practice to manage docket efficiency, it is a procedural shortcut rather than a substantive legal determination. However, given the explicit citation to local/district precedent supporting this approach and the fact that the plaintiff had the opportunity to brief these issues but chose not to, the decision follows from the procedural record and cited authorities.

Request to strike on anti-SLAPP grounds dismissed as moot

“Third-Party Defendants’ request to strike Peters’ Complaint on anti-SLAPP grounds is DISMISSED AS MOOT.”

agree with court
Because the complaint was dismissed in its entirety based on the conceded grounds, the alternative argument regarding anti-SLAPP immunity became unnecessary to resolve. Dismissing a redundant or alternative ground as moot after the primary ground succeeds is standard and correct.

The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It identifies the motion, the grounds raised, and the plaintiff's failure to address two of the three grounds. It cites specific district court authority supporting the proposition that unopposed arguments are conceded. The result (dismissal) follows logically from the premise (concession of the merits of the 12(b)(6) and immunity claims). The dismissal of the anti-SLAPP claim as moot is also logically consistent. There are no gaps in the reasoning provided for the specific procedural mechanism used.

How this analysis was made · dispute it

unusual disposition

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 NEW YORK MARINE AND GENERAL Case No.: 3:21-cv-1692 W (WVG) INSURANCE COMPANY, a New York 12 corporation, ORDER GRANTING THIRD-PARTY 13 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO Plaintiff, DISMISS THIRD-PARTY 14 v. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT 15 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND DAVID M. PETERS, a California citizen, [DOC. 11] 16 Defendant. 17 DAVID M. PETERS, a California citizen, 18 19 Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, 20 v. 21 MICHAEL D. BRESLAUER, et al. 22 Third-Party Defendants. 23 24 Pending before the Court is Third-Party Defendants Michael D. Breslauer and 25 Solomon Ward Seidenwurm & Smith, LLP’s (collectively, “Third-Party Defendants”) 26 Motion to Dismiss Third-Party Plaintiff David M. Peters’ Third-Party Complaint. (Mot. 27 28 1 [Doc. 11].)! Third-Party Defendants argue that Peters’ Complaint should be dismissed 2 || for three reasons: (1) for failing to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 3 || 12(b)(6); (2) because the Complaint is subject to absolute quasi-judicial immunity; and 4 ||(3) because the Complaint is subject to California’s anti-SLAPP statute. (/d. at 2.) Peters 5 || filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss but only addressed Third-Party Defendants’ 6 anti-SLAPP argument. (Opp’n [Doc. 29].) Having failed to oppose Third-Party 7 Defendants’ first two grounds for dismissal, Peters concedes that his Complaint fails to 8 a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) and that his Complaint is subject to judicial immunity. 9 Marziano v. Cnty. of Marin, 2010 WL 3895528, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2010) 10 || (ruling that plaintiffs failure to oppose defendant’s argument amounts to a concession 11 the claim should be dismissed); Hall v. Mortgage Investors Grp., 2011 WL 4374995, 12 *5 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 19, 2011) (failing to oppose an argument concedes the truth of the 13 argument); In re Univ. of S. Cal. Tuition and Fees COVID-19 Refund Litig., 2021 WL 14 |/3560783, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 6, 2021) (finding same). 15 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Third-Party Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss 16 || WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. [Doc. 11]. Third-Party Defendants’ request to 17 strike Peters’ Complaint on anti-SLAPP grounds is DISMISSED AS MOOT. 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 Dated: April 13, 2022 20 Ho omas J. Whelan 9 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court decides the matter on the papers submitted and without oral argument. See Civ. L.R.