Thomas v. State Farm General Insurance Company

Opinion

7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Sarah Aislinn Flynn Thomas, Case No. 18-cv-00728-BAS-BGS 11 Plaintiff, ORDER: 12 v. (1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 13 OBJECTION [ECF No. 39]; State Farm Insurance Company, 14 (2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX Defendant. PARTE MOTION AS MOOT 15 [ECF No. 40]; AND 16 (3) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO ENTER JUDGMENT 17 18 On January 7, 2020, the Court issued a Supplemental Order tentatively granting 19 Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the good faith and fair dealing claim but 20 permitting Plaintiff to object. (ECF No. 38.) 21 Plaintiff timely objected on January 15, 2020 on the basis that, under Rule 56, she 22 “should be allowed to discover whether State Farm decided unreasonably to not apply the 23 statutes to the policies here.” (Plf.’s Obj. at 1, ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff argues that “State 24 Farm could have suspected that the statutes applied to the policies here but either 25 deliberately abstained from confirming their applicability or . . . concluded that they 26 probably did apply, but denied the claim” to avoid paying out benefits. (Id.) 27 The Court is unpersuaded. First, Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden under Rule 28 56(d) to justify more time for discovery on the good faith and fair dealing claim. “A party 1 requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule [56(d)] must identify by affidavit the specific 2 facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude 3 summary judgment.” Tatum v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th 4 Cir. 2006). A motion pursuant to this rule “must be brought before the summary judgment 5 hearing.” U.S. v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff 6 did not bring a motion before the hearing date of August 26, 2019. Moreover, Plaintiff had 7 numerous other opportunities—in her Opposition to State Farm’s summary judgment 8 motion, in the Joint Status Report, and in her Objection—to provide the necessary affidavit 9 specifying facts necessitating further discovery, but failed to do so. As such, Plaintiff is 10 not entitled to Rule 56(d) relief. See id. (holding that “[f]ailure to comply with these 11 requirements is a proper ground for denying relief” under Rule 56(d)). 12 Second, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s attempt to transform a question of law into a 13 question of fact to justify further discovery. Insurers violate the implied covenant of good 14 faith and fair dealing if they fail to perform a reasonable investigation that would have 15 disclosed facts showing that a claim was covered. See Jordan v. Allstate Ins., 148 Cal. 16 App. 4th 1062, 1074 (2007). Plaintiff’s theory does not conform to this rule. Instead of 17 arguing that State Farm failed to reasonably investigate the existence of facts showing her 18 claim was covered, she contends that State Farm failed to reasonably investigate legal 19 conclusions or impressions that could have supported coverage of her claim. Plaintiff cites 20 no authority to support that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires insurers to 21 conduct legal assessments of the retroactive application of a statute, or that the mere 22 possibility of an unfavorable assessment creates the type of factual dispute requiring further 23 discovery under Rule 56. Thus, the fundamental issue in this case remains solely a question 24 of law, which does not provide a proper basis for further discovery under Rule 56(d). See 25 Swoger v. Rare Coin Wholesalers, 803 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff did not 26 satisfy Rule 56(d) request for further discovery where summary judgment determination 27 “turned on a pure question of law”). 28 1 Plaintiff has not presented facts raising a genuine issue of State Farm’s liability □□□□ 2 || California law on her implied covenant claim, nor can Plaintiff discover such facts going 3 || forward. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff's Objection (ECF No. 39) anc 4 || DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment: 5 (1) GRANTING Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) and 6 DENYING IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 7 No. 24) as to the breach of contract claim; 8 (2) GRANTING IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 9 No. 24) as to the good faith and fair dealing claim; and 10 (3) DENYING AS MOOT Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for leave to respond to 11 Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 40). 12 Upon entry of judgment, the Clerk is directed to close the case. 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 f 15 || DATED: February 3, 2020 (pil 4 (Hyoha A ( 16 United States District Judge 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28