Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01209/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-01209-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

1

19CV1209-GPC(AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBLEE LARSON-VALENTINE,

Plaintiff,

v.

TRAVELERS COMMERCIAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY a corporation; 

and DOES 1-50,

Defendant.

Case No.: 19CV1209-GPC(AGS)

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S 

UNOPPOSED MOTION TO DISMISS 

CLAIM FOR PUNITIVE DAMAGES 

AND DUPLICATIVE CAUSE OF 

ACTION 

[Dkt. No. 5.]

Before the Court is Defendant Travelers Commercial Insurance Company’s motion 

to dismiss claim for punitive damages and the third cause of action as duplicative. (Dkt. 

No. 5.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Based on the reasoning below, the Court 

GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss as unopposed. 

Background

On June 28, 2018, the case was removed to this Court. (Dkt. No. 1.) Plaintiff 

Roblee Larson-Valentine filed a complaint which alleges three cause of action: (1) breach 

of contract, (2) contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing 

and (3) tortious breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for 

Case 3:19-cv-01209-GPC-AGS Document 7 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
2

19CV1209-GPC(AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Defendant’s failure to indemnify her for property damage due to a broken pipe under her 

insurance policy. (Dkt. No. 1-4, Compl.) 

Defendant moves to dismiss the claim for punitive damages for failure to comply 

with the pleading standard under Iqbal1 and Twombly.

2

 In addition, Defendant seeks 

dismissal of the third cause of action as duplicative of the second cause of action citing

L&S Enters. v. Sentinel Ins. Co., EDCV 16-1841-SVW-SPx, 2016 WL 10592208, at *2 

(C.D. Cal. Oct. 24, 2016) (granting motion to strike second cause of action for 

contractual breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing as non-existent 

or duplicative of third cause of action for tortious breach of the implied covenant of good 

faith and fair dealing.). 

Civil Local Rule 7.1.e.2 requires a party opposing a motion to file an opposition or 

statement of non-opposition within fourteen calendar days of the noticed hearing (or 

when otherwise scheduled by the Court). Civ. Local R. 7.1.e.2; Turner v. Berryhill, No. 

17CV1130-CAB-BGS, 2018 WL 501010, at *3 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 19, 2018). Failure to 

comply with the rule “may constitute a consent to the granting of a motion.” Civ. Local 

R. 7.1.f.3.c. Local rules have the force of law, United States v. Hvass, 355 U.S. 570, 

574-75 (1958), and courts have discretion to dismiss cases for failure to comply with the 

local rules. Ghazali v. Moran, 36 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995) (affirming grant of an 

unopposed motion to dismiss under local rule by deeming a pro se litigant’s failure to 

oppose as consent to grant the motion). 

Here, the Court issued a briefing scheduling requiring Plaintiff to file an opposition 

on or before July 26, 2019. (Dkt. No. 6.) Plaintiff did not file an opposition. Therefore, 

Plaintiff’s failure to oppose constitutes a waiver or abandonment of the issues raised in 

Defendant’s motion. See Qureshi v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., No. 09–4198, 2010 

WL 841669, at *6 n. 2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 10, 2010) (deeming plaintiff's failure to address, 

 

1 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

2 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)

Case 3:19-cv-01209-GPC-AGS Document 7 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
3

19CV1209-GPC(AGS)

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in opposition brief, claims challenged in a motion to dismiss, an “abandonment of those 

claims”) (citing Jenkins v. Cnty. of Riverside, 398 F.3d 1093, 1095 n. 4 (9th Cir. 2005)); 

Sportscare of America, P.C. v. Multiplan, Inc., No. 2:10–4414, 2011 WL 589955, at *1 

(D.N.J. Feb. 10, 2011) (“In most circumstances, failure to respond in an opposition brief 

to an argument put forward in an opening brief constitutes waiver or abandonment in 

regard to the uncontested issue.”). 

Here, Plaintiff, with counsel, failed to file an opposition; thus, she has waived or 

abandoned these claims. The Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss as 

unopposed. 

Conclusion

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s motion to dismiss the claim for 

punitive damages and the third cause of action as unopposed. The hearing set on August 

23, 2019 shall be vacated.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: August 9, 2019

Case 3:19-cv-01209-GPC-AGS Document 7 Filed 08/09/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3