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,

, 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.,

, 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.,

|/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.