Colleen Stewart v. Property and Casualty Insuranc

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: April 25, 2023
• Docket: 21-15753
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS APR 25 2023 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLLEEN STEWART, No. 21-15753

Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02418-TLN-KJN

v. MEMORANDUM* PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before: CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

Colleen Stewart appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in her

diversity action arising out of Stewart’s homeowners’ insurance claim. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment because Stewart

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s

investigation of her insurance claim and offer of benefits was neither fair nor

reasonable. See Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (Cal.

2011) (elements of a breach of contract claim); Kransco v. Am. Empire Surplus

Lines Ins. Co., 2 P.3d 1, 8 (Cal. 2000) (requirements for breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing).

We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

Stewart’s motions for an extension of time to file the reply brief (Docket

Entry Nos. 34, 38) are denied.

AFFIRMED.

2 21-15753