Bovier v. Bridgepoint Education et al

Filing 42

ORDER DISMISSING Bridgepoint University Governing Board of Regents as a Non-Existent Defendant and Denying Plaintiff's Motion Request for Relief. Signed by Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel on 3/2/18.(All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(dlg)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

DR. RACQUEL S. BOVIER, c/o
EPIPHANY ONEPOINTE
TELETHERAPY & ASSOC., LLC,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Case No.: 3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA
ORDER:

Plaintiff,

(1) DISMISSING BRIDGEPOINT
UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BOARD
OF REGENTS AS A NON-EXISTENT
DEFENDANT AND
(2) DENYING PLAINTIFF’S
MOTION REQUEST FOR RELIEF
[DKT. NO. 41]

v.
BRIDGEPOINT
EDUCATION/ASHFORD
UNIVERSITY, BRIDGEPOINT
UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BOARD
OF REGENTS, DR. CRAIG MAXWELL,
DR. ANTHONY “TONY” FARRELL,
DR. DENISE MAXWELL, MR. JOHN
GOODISON, DR. IRIS LAFFERTY, DR.
TAMECCA FITZPATRICK, DR. JUDY
DONOVAN, DR. JACKIE KYGER, MS.
HEATHER MASON, DR. ALAN
BELCHER, MR. ARMONDO
DOMINGUEZ & ASSOC.,

24
25

Defendants.

26
27
28
1
3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

1

I.

DISMISSAL OF NON-EXISTENT DEFENDANT BRIDGEPOINT

2

EDUCATION UNIVERSITY GOVERNING BOARD OF REGENTS

3

On February 22, 2018, this Court granted the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First

4

Amended Complaint as to Defendants Bridgepoint Education, Inc. (“Bridgepoint”) and

5

Anthony Farrell, Denise Maxwell, Iris Lafferty, Tamecca Fitzpatrick, Judy Donovan,

6

Jackie Kyger, Heather Mason, Alan Belcher, John Goodison, and Armando Dominguez

7

(the “Individual Defendants”). Dkt. No. 37. That same day, the Court ordered

8

defendant’s attorney to show cause as to why Defendant Bridgepoint Governing Board of

9

Regents, a party listed in the First Amended Complaint and for which a summons

10

returned executed is listed on the docket (Dkt. No. 34), had not yet filed a responsive

11

pleading to Dr. Bovier’s First Amended Complaint.

12

On March 1, 2018, Defendant Bridgepoint Education (represented by Attorney

13

Jacqueline Seiter) filed a status report in response to the Court’s Order. Seiter reported

14

that Bridgepoint Education University Governing Board of Regents had not filed a

15

responsive pleading because this entity does not exist. See Harvey Decl. ¶ 3. Neither

16

Bridgepoint, nor Ashford University maintain a Board of Regents. Id. ¶ 4. No California

17

business entity including Bridgepoint or Ashford appears to include the name “Board of

18

Regents” in its name. Seiter Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.

19

Accordingly, the Court will DISMISS Defendant Bridgepoint Education

20

University Governing Board of Regents as a non-existent entity. See Mcguckin v. Smith,

21

974 F.2d 1050, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Techs., Inc.

22

v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1997) (en banc) (“Although there does not

23

appear to be an explicit basis either in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or in federal

24

statutes for the dismissal of a ‘nonexistent defendant’ on that ground alone, it is likely

25

that district courts have the authority to do so.”); Pippen v. Georgia-Pac., LLC, No. 1:07-

26

CV-1565-BBM/AJB, 2008 WL 11336177, at *3 (N.D. Ga. May 21, 2008) (dismissing

27

nonexistent entity as “an entity which does not exist is not amenable to suit”); Orion

28
2
3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA

1

Const. Group, LLC v. Berkshire Wind Power, LLC, No. 07-cv-10, 2007 WL 1118375 at *

2

6 (E.D. Wis. Apr. 13, 2007) (dismissing case against entity that does not exist).
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RELIEF

3

II.

4

On February 28, 2018, the Court received a “Motion Request for Relief” from

5

Plaintiff Racquel Bovier. Dkt. No. 41. In her request for relief, Ms. Bovier appears to

6

acknowledge (citing Local Rule 7-12) that she failed to oppose Defendant’s motion to

7

dismiss/quash in a timely manner. Mot. ¶ 2.

8
9

Nevertheless, Ms. Bovier also appears to be bringing a motion for default
judgment against Bridgepoint University Governing Board of Regents, the entity the

10

Court dismisses above as a non-existent entity. Mot. ¶ 1. Plaintiff has requested several

11

remedies including compensatory damages, punitive damages, and restitution. Mot. at 6.

12

This motion fails for several reasons, including because the remaining defendant is a non-

13

existent entity and because the clerk has not entered a default against Bridgepoint

14

University Governing Board of Regents. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Accordingly, the

15

Court construes Plaintiff’s Motion as a Motion for Default Judgment and DENIES the

16

Motion.

17
18

CONCLUSION
As all Defendants listed in the First Amended Complaint have now been

19

dismissed, the First Amended Complaint is now dismissed in its entirety without

20

prejudice. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to administratively close the case.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 2, 2018

24
25
26
27
28
3
3:17-cv-01052-GPC-JMA