Bally v. State Farm Life Insurance Company

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 ELIZABETH A. BALLY, Case No. 18-cv-04954-CRB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 10 v. LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS- MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11 STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE JUDGMENT ON COUNT TWO COMPANY, 12 Defendant. 13

14 On April 28, 2021, the Court issued its Order on Cross-Motions for Summary 15 Judgment (“Order”) (dkt. 222). In relevant part, the Order denied State Farm summary 16 judgment with respect to the claim for breach of contract based on the monthly expense 17 provision (“Count II”). Order at 20. Plaintiff did not move for summary judgment on 18 Count II. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff leave to move for summary judgment 19 on Count II, and Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Count II on June 30, 2021. 20 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (dkt. 237). On July 27, 2021, State Farm filed a 21 motion for leave to file a cross-motion for summary judgment on Count II. Motion for 22 Leave (“Motion”) (dkt. 239). Because State Farm has not shown good cause for leave to 23 file a second summary judgment motion on Count II, the Motion is DENIED. 24 25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff’s Count II claim centers on the monthly expense charge provision, which 27 states that “[t]he monthly expense charge is $5.00.” Order at 15–16. Plaintiff alleges that 1 fixed monthly expenses under the policy would not exceed $5.00. Id. at 16. Plaintiff 2 contends that State Farm breached this promise by charging policyholders additional, 3 unidentified monthly expenses in connection with the cost of insurance rate. Id. at 15. 4 In denying State Farm summary judgment on Count II, the Court found that based 5 on the plain language of the policy, a policyholder could reasonably understand “monthly 6 expense charge” to cover all monthly expenses. Id. at 16–17. The Court further found that 7 the context of the policy supported this interpretation because the policy includes separate 8 and additional charges that a reasonable policyholder could conclude enabled State Farm 9 not only to recover the cost of offering the policy but to make a profit from the policy as 10 well. Id. at 17–18. 11 In response, State Farm argued that the monthly expense charge identified certain 12 expenses but did not preclude the collection of additional expenses elsewhere. Id. at 18. 13 Although the Court noted that Plaintiff’s interpretation was “possibly the only reasonable 14 reading,” it assumed for the sake of argument that State Farm’s interpretation was also 15 reasonable and it considered extrinsic evidence. Id. 16 The extrinsic evidence did not help State Farm. Rather, the extrinsic evidence 17 suggested that many consumers were not informed about the nature of the expenses 18 charged under the policy. Id. at 19. The Court found that the extrinsic evidence was 19 lacking in other ways as well. For example, it was limited to certain regions although the 20 policy is national, and it went to the subjective understanding of certain consumers rather 21 than the objective understanding of a reasonable policyholder. Id. at 19–20. Based on the 22 extrinsic evidence, the Court found “the ‘monthly expense charge’ is at best ambiguous” 23 and denied State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on Count II. Id. at 20. 24 State Farm now seeks leave to file a second motion for summary judgment on 25 Count II. 26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 “[D]istrict courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for summary 1 whether good cause exists to allow successive motions for summary judgment, courts 2 consider factors such as the “availability of new evidence or an expanded factual record,” 3 “an intervening change in controlling law,” or “the need to correct a clear error or prevent 4 manifest injustice.” Peasley v. Spearman, No. 15-CV-01769-LHK, 2017 WL 5451709, at 5 *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017) (citations and internal quotations omitted). 6 III. ANALYSIS 7 State Farm fails to establish good cause for leave to file a second motion for 8 summary judgment on Count II. It does not identify any newly available evidence, 9 changes in law, clear errors, or similar developments that would warrant a renewed motion 10 on Count II. While State Farm promises that it will offer new “fact evidence” regarding 11 Count II, it provides no detail on the nature of the evidence or why such evidence could 12 not have been presented in its previous motion for summary judgment on Count II. See 13 Motion at 2. State Farm repeatedly points out that Plaintiff has submitted a supplemental 14 expert report, but it does not explain how that report has any bearing on how a reasonable 15 policyholder would interpret the monthly expense charge.1 See id. at 2–3. Finally, while 16 State Farm states that it will present “significant analysis of the $5.00 monthly expense 17 charge,” it does not elaborate on the analysis in any detail or explain why the analysis 18 could not have been offered in its earlier briefing. Id. 19 The Court expects State Farm will make its arguments regarding Count II in its 20 opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement. But State Farm fails to establish 21 that the evidence and arguments could not have been previously raised, and State Farm is 22 not entitled to a second bite at the apple. 23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 The Court DENIES State Farm’s motion for leave to file a cross-motion for 25 summary judgment on Count II. The Court also DENIES State Farm’s motion for leave to 26

27 1 To the extent that State Farm believes Plaintiff’s supplemental expert report is subject to 1 || file a reply in response to Plaintiff's opposition to State Farm’s motion for leave. 2 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. : kK 4 Dated: August 10, 2021 CHARLES R. BREYER 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 qa 12

© 15 16

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28