NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YS GARMENTS, DBA Next Level No. 18-56614 Apparel, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:17-cv-03345-SJO-JEM
v. MEMORANDUM* CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
YS GARMENTS, DBA Next Level No. 18-56667 Apparel, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:17-cv-03345-SJO-JEM
v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 20, 2020
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, COOK,** and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
In 2003, Alonn Shafigi and Yosef Simsoly founded Next Level Apparel, a
corporation for making and marketing t-shirts. Though their business prospered,
Shafigi and Simsoly disputed the distribution of Next Level’s stock for more than a
decade. That dispute resulted in Shafigi bringing suit against Simsoly and Next
Level—litigation culminating in a $6.5 million settlement. Next Level then sued its
insurer, Continental Casualty Company, for failing to defend and indemnify Next
Level from Shafigi’s suit and for breaching the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. Because the district court granted summary judgment for Continental
on grounds not raised by either party without giving Next Level notice and a
reasonable time to respond, we vacate the second summary judgment order, vacate
the first summary judgment order in part, and remand for further proceedings.
1. The district court erred in concluding that Continental and Next Level
impliedly formed a contract releasing Continental from its duty to further indemnify
Next Level when Continental offered to pay $200,000 toward the Shafigi settlement
and Next Level settled the suit because Continental did not raise the implied release
issue below and Next Level never received notice and a reasonable opportunity to
** The Honorable Deborah L. Cook, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
2 18-56614 respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(2); Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 976 (9th Cir.
2015).
Continental does not dispute that it raised no arguments about an implied
release in its summary judgment briefing. Instead, Continental suggests that Next
Level received notice of the implied release issue when Continental pleaded (in its
cross-complaint) that Next Level “agree[d] in principle” to limit its recovery to
$200,000. This cannot provide notice, however, because it departs from the district
court’s analysis. The cross-complaint alleged that Next Level was obligated to enter
into a release agreement with Continental after the Shafigi suit settled. The district
court, by contrast, found that Next Level’s act of settling with Shafigi “effectuated
the contract between Continental and Next Level.”
Continental also cites the district court’s order requiring the parties to brief
“whether Continental can be held liable for more than the $200,000 it agreed to pay
as part of the settlement.” In answer to that question, Continental could have argued
that the Shafigi settlement constituted an implied release, but it did not. The district
court’s broad question cannot be said to have put Next Level on notice of every
argument Continental might have raised in response.
Continental also cites its second motion for summary judgment to suggest that
Next Level had notice of the implied release issue. There, Continental argued that
it was willing to pay $200,000, “with the understanding that . . . [Next Level] would
3 18-56614 release claims under the EPL Policy . . . .” But that passage appears as part of
Continental’s argument that Next Level failed to obtain prior written consent to
settle. Besides, Continental argued in the same paragraph that Next Level and
Continental did not effectuate a release.
Continental also cites a portion of its opposition to Next Level’s motion for
summary judgment. There, Continental argued that the draft release sent to Next
Level’s counsel shortly after the Shafigi settlement “reflected the parties’ intent that
. . . Continental would satisfy any indemnity obligation under the EPL Policy” by
paying $200,000. Viewed in the light most favorable to Next Level, Continental’s
draft release suggests that it sought a release after settlement. At any rate, this is not
an argument that Next Level’s settlement of the Shafigi suit effected a release of
Continental.
Because Next Level received no notice or opportunity to respond to the
implied release issue, we vacate the district court’s second summary judgment order.
See Hoard v. Hartman, 904 F.3d 780, 793 (9th Cir. 2018).
2. The district court also deprived Next Level of notice and a reasonable
opportunity to respond when its first summary judgment order dismissed Next
4 18-56614 Level’s bad faith claims addressing “the alleged breach of a duty to defend or a duty
to indemnify” as “duplicative of [Next Level’s] breach of contract claims.”
Continental responds not by arguing that it raised duplication below, but by
contending that Next Level did have notice that Continental was challenging its bad
faith claims. Continental’s first summary judgment motion, however, sought
dismissal of the bad faith claims on the theory that Continental met its duty to settle.
Continental could have argued that Next Level’s breach of contract claims and bad
faith claims were duplicative; it did not. And as a result, Next Level did not have an
opportunity to offer a defense to the district court’s novel approach.
Continental alternatively argues that the district court “implicitly” found
Continental did not breach its duty to defend, and thus the district court could
summarily dismiss Next Level’s bad faith claims regarding Continental’s duty to
defend. But the district court’s first summary judgment order “addresse[d] only the
issue of whether Continental had a duty to defend, not whether it breached this duty.”
Thus, the district court’s first summary judgment order did not find, implicitly or
otherwise, that Continental satisfied its duty to defend.
Continental cites several cases explaining that if the conduct underlying
breach of contract and bad faith claims is identical, and if the relief sought is
identical, then the district court may dismiss the bad faith claims as duplicative. Next
Level, however, had no “full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issue[].” Arce, 793
5 18-56614 F.3d at 976 (citation omitted). This error “is not harmless . . . because we do not
know what evidence [Next Level] would have presented if [it] had been afforded
adequate notice and opportunity to present [its] case” regarding Continental’s bad
faith. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 974 (9th Cir. 2010). We
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS SEP 18 2020 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
YS GARMENTS, DBA Next Level No. 18-56614 Apparel, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellant, 2:17-cv-03345-SJO-JEM
v. MEMORANDUM* CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellee.
YS GARMENTS, DBA Next Level No. 18-56667 Apparel, D.C. No. Plaintiff-Appellee, 2:17-cv-03345-SJO-JEM
v.
CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY,
Defendant-Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California S. James Otero, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted August 20, 2020
* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Pasadena, California
Before: WARDLAW, COOK,** and HUNSAKER, Circuit Judges.
In 2003, Alonn Shafigi and Yosef Simsoly founded Next Level Apparel, a
corporation for making and marketing t-shirts. Though their business prospered,
Shafigi and Simsoly disputed the distribution of Next Level’s stock for more than a
decade. That dispute resulted in Shafigi bringing suit against Simsoly and Next
Level—litigation culminating in a $6.5 million settlement. Next Level then sued its
insurer, Continental Casualty Company, for failing to defend and indemnify Next
Level from Shafigi’s suit and for breaching the implied covenant of good faith and
fair dealing. Because the district court granted summary judgment for Continental
on grounds not raised by either party without giving Next Level notice and a
reasonable time to respond, we vacate the second summary judgment order, vacate
the first summary judgment order in part, and remand for further proceedings.
1. The district court erred in concluding that Continental and Next Level
impliedly formed a contract releasing Continental from its duty to further indemnify
Next Level when Continental offered to pay $200,000 toward the Shafigi settlement
and Next Level settled the suit because Continental did not raise the implied release
issue below and Next Level never received notice and a reasonable opportunity to
** The Honorable Deborah L. Cook, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
2 18-56614 respond. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f)(2); Arce v. Douglas, 793 F.3d 968, 976 (9th Cir.
2015).
Continental does not dispute that it raised no arguments about an implied
release in its summary judgment briefing. Instead, Continental suggests that Next
Level received notice of the implied release issue when Continental pleaded (in its
cross-complaint) that Next Level “agree[d] in principle” to limit its recovery to
$200,000. This cannot provide notice, however, because it departs from the district
court’s analysis. The cross-complaint alleged that Next Level was obligated to enter
into a release agreement with Continental after the Shafigi suit settled. The district
court, by contrast, found that Next Level’s act of settling with Shafigi “effectuated
the contract between Continental and Next Level.”
Continental also cites the district court’s order requiring the parties to brief
“whether Continental can be held liable for more than the $200,000 it agreed to pay
as part of the settlement.” In answer to that question, Continental could have argued
that the Shafigi settlement constituted an implied release, but it did not. The district
court’s broad question cannot be said to have put Next Level on notice of every
argument Continental might have raised in response.
Continental also cites its second motion for summary judgment to suggest that
Next Level had notice of the implied release issue. There, Continental argued that
it was willing to pay $200,000, “with the understanding that . . . [Next Level] would
3 18-56614 release claims under the EPL Policy . . . .” But that passage appears as part of
Continental’s argument that Next Level failed to obtain prior written consent to
settle. Besides, Continental argued in the same paragraph that Next Level and
Continental did not effectuate a release.
Continental also cites a portion of its opposition to Next Level’s motion for
summary judgment. There, Continental argued that the draft release sent to Next
Level’s counsel shortly after the Shafigi settlement “reflected the parties’ intent that
. . . Continental would satisfy any indemnity obligation under the EPL Policy” by
paying $200,000. Viewed in the light most favorable to Next Level, Continental’s
draft release suggests that it sought a release after settlement. At any rate, this is not
an argument that Next Level’s settlement of the Shafigi suit effected a release of
Continental.
Because Next Level received no notice or opportunity to respond to the
implied release issue, we vacate the district court’s second summary judgment order.
See Hoard v. Hartman, 904 F.3d 780, 793 (9th Cir. 2018).
2. The district court also deprived Next Level of notice and a reasonable
opportunity to respond when its first summary judgment order dismissed Next
4 18-56614 Level’s bad faith claims addressing “the alleged breach of a duty to defend or a duty
to indemnify” as “duplicative of [Next Level’s] breach of contract claims.”
Continental responds not by arguing that it raised duplication below, but by
contending that Next Level did have notice that Continental was challenging its bad
faith claims. Continental’s first summary judgment motion, however, sought
dismissal of the bad faith claims on the theory that Continental met its duty to settle.
Continental could have argued that Next Level’s breach of contract claims and bad
faith claims were duplicative; it did not. And as a result, Next Level did not have an
opportunity to offer a defense to the district court’s novel approach.
Continental alternatively argues that the district court “implicitly” found
Continental did not breach its duty to defend, and thus the district court could
summarily dismiss Next Level’s bad faith claims regarding Continental’s duty to
defend. But the district court’s first summary judgment order “addresse[d] only the
issue of whether Continental had a duty to defend, not whether it breached this duty.”
Thus, the district court’s first summary judgment order did not find, implicitly or
otherwise, that Continental satisfied its duty to defend.
Continental cites several cases explaining that if the conduct underlying
breach of contract and bad faith claims is identical, and if the relief sought is
identical, then the district court may dismiss the bad faith claims as duplicative. Next
Level, however, had no “full and fair opportunity to ventilate the issue[].” Arce, 793
5 18-56614 F.3d at 976 (citation omitted). This error “is not harmless . . . because we do not
know what evidence [Next Level] would have presented if [it] had been afforded
adequate notice and opportunity to present [its] case” regarding Continental’s bad
faith. Norse v. City of Santa Cruz, 629 F.3d 966, 974 (9th Cir. 2010). We
accordingly vacate the district court’s first summary judgment order to the extent it
dismissed Next Level’s bad faith claims addressing Continental’s duties to defend
and indemnify.
3. We disagree with Continental’s assertion that we may affirm the judgment
below on the basis that the record includes no admissible evidence of Next Level
obtaining prior written consent to settle the Shafigi action.
During oral argument, counsel for Next Level conceded that the district court
erred in considering an email sent by Continental’s insurance adjuster to establish
prior written consent inasmuch as California’s mediation privilege renders it
inadmissible. See Cal. Evid. Code § 1119(a); see also Fed. R. Evid. 501. After Next
Level and Shafigi signed their settlement agreement, however, Continental sent a
draft release confirming that it had “consented” to the settlement and “agreed to
contribute” $200,000 on behalf of Next Level. The draft release was a post-
mediation communication. See Cal. Evid. Code § 1125. Section 1119 does not
restrict using post-mediation communications as evidence. See id. As a result, the
post-mediation draft release constitutes admissible evidence tending to show that
6 18-56614 Continental gave prior written consent to the Shafigi settlement. See Fed. R. Evid.
801(d)(2)(A).
We VACATE the second summary judgment order, VACATE the first
summary judgment order in part, and REMAND to the district court. The parties
shall bear their own costs.
7 18-56614