Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00492/USCOURTS-casd-3_12-cv-00492-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983cv Civil Rights Act - Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights

---

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

PAUL HUPP,

Plaintiff,

CASE NO. 12cv0492-GPC-JLB

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS’

MOTION TO DISMISS AND

VACATING MOTION HEARING

DATE

[Dkt. No. 273.]

vs.

SAN DIEGO COUNTY, et al.

Defendants.

On July 18, 2014, Defendants City of San Diego, Raymond Wetzel, County

of San Diego, James Romo, Peter Myers and Joseph Cargel (collectively,

“Defendants”) filed a joint motion to dismiss the present action pursuant to Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b), 37(b), and 37(d). (Dkt. No. 273.) Defendants argue

Plaintiff failed to attend a properly noticed deposition in violation of a court order

and seek dismissal of the above-captioned matter in its entirety. (Id.) The Court has

issued two orders requiring Plaintiff to respond to the motion. (Dkt. Nos. 277, 282.)

Plaintiff’s deadline to file a response was September 5, 2014. (Dkt. No. 282.) On

September 12, 2014, Plaintiff filed an opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss.

(Dkt. No. 287.) On September 16, 2014, Defendants County of San Diego and

Joseph Cargel filed an objection to Plaintiff’s opposition brief, requesting that this

- 1 -

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 289 Filed 09/18/14 Page 1 of 3
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

Court disregard Plaintiff’s untimely opposition. (Dkt. No. 288.) 

Since the filing of the present motion to dismiss, the Court has granted

Defendants City of San Diego and Raymond Wetzel’s motion for summary

judgment on all claims against them in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint

(“TAC”). (Dkt. No. 278.) In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff’s TAC claims

against Defendants James Romo and Peter Meyers have also been dismissed on the

merits. (Dkt. Nos. 221, 228.) In fact, of the twelve causes of action alleged against

the various Defendants in Plaintiff’s TAC, the current operative complaint, (Dkt.

No. 64), only Plaintiff’s twelfth cause of action against the County of San Diego

and Joseph Cargel remains. (See Dkt. No. 156) (staying this Court’s adjudication of

Plaintiff’s twelfth cause of action due to an ongoing criminal appeal proceeding

under Younger abstention principles).

1

 Because Defendants’ motion was filed prior to dismissal of several of

Plaintiff’s claims, the motion fails to set forth authority under which this Court may

dismiss either: 1) a stayed cause of action such as the twelfth cause of action as set

forth in Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint; or 2) a “cause of action” for

declaratory relief, for failure to prosecute or failure to obey a court order. Although

the Court has discretion to dismiss a case under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

(“FRCP”) 41(b) for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or comply with a court order, or

under FRCP 37 for failure to comply with a Court order, the Court declines to do so

Although no Defendant has moved this Court to dismiss the second half of

1

Plaintiff’s eleventh cause of action for declaratory relief, (Dkt. No. 64 at ¶ 126),

Plaintiff’s claimfor declaratory relief isrelated to his fourth cause of action for custody

credits, (Dkt. No. 64 at ¶¶ 77-87). This Court granted DefendantCounty of San Diego’s

motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiff’s fourth cause of action on March

4, 2014. (Dkt. No. 239.) It is well established that declaratory relief is a remedy and not

a cause of action. Audette v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, 195

F.3d 1107, 1111 n.2 (9th Cir. 1999) (“Our discussion of plaintiff’s state law claims

excludesthe alleged fifth cause of action for ‘declaratory judgment,’ because it merely

seeks relief rather than stating a claim.”). Absent a viable underlying claim, this Court

may not grant declaratory relief. See, e.g., Hamilton v. Bank of Blue Valley, 746 F.

Supp. 2d 1160, 1181 (E.D. Cal. 2010) (“In the absence of a viable claim, the complaint

fails to support declaratory relief.”); Ventimiglia v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., No. CIV

13-00953 WBS CMK, 2013 WL 5719526 at *2 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013). 

- 2 -

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 289 Filed 09/18/14 Page 2 of 3
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

at this juncture because the remaining cause of action in the above-captioned matter

is currently stayed. Accordingly, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES WITHOUT

PREJUDICE Defendants’ motion to dismiss pursuant to FRCP 41(b), 37(b), and

37(d). Defendants may file a renewed motion to dismiss for failure to prosecute or

failure to obey a court order if Defendants set forth legal authority under which the

Court may grant such a motion while the remaining causes of action are stayed.

Alternatively, Defendants may file a renewed motion once the stay is lifted. 

Accordingly, the Court VACATES the motion hearing set for Friday,

September 19, 2014 at 1:30 p.m.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 18, 2014

HON. GONZALO P. CURIEL

United States District Judge

- 3 -

Case 3:12-cv-00492-GPC-JLB Document 289 Filed 09/18/14 Page 3 of 3