Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00728/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00728-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332in Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

- 1 -

18cv728

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Sarah Aislinn Flynn Thomas,

Plaintiff,

v.

State Farm Insurance Company,

 Defendant.

Case No. 18-cv-00728-BAS-BGS

ORDER:

(1) OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S 

OBJECTION [ECF No. 39];

(2) DENYING DEFENDANT’S EX 

PARTE MOTION AS MOOT

[ECF No. 40]; AND

(3) DIRECTING THE CLERK TO 

ENTER JUDGMENT

On January 7, 2020, the Court issued a Supplemental Order tentatively granting 

Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment as to the good faith and fair dealing claim but 

permitting Plaintiff to object. (ECF No. 38.) 

Plaintiff timely objected on January 15, 2020 on the basis that, under Rule 56, she

“should be allowed to discover whether State Farm decided unreasonably to not apply the 

statutes to the policies here.” (Plf.’s Obj. at 1, ECF No. 39.) Plaintiff argues that “State 

Farm could have suspected that the statutes applied to the policies here but either 

deliberately abstained from confirming their applicability or . . . concluded that they 

probably did apply, but denied the claim” to avoid paying out benefits. (Id.) 

The Court is unpersuaded. First, Plaintiff has not satisfied her burden under Rule 

56(d) to justify more time for discovery on the good faith and fair dealing claim. “A party 

Case 3:18-cv-00728-BAS-BGS Document 44 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 3
- 2 -

18cv728

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

requesting a continuance pursuant to Rule [56(d)] must identify by affidavit the specific 

facts that further discovery would reveal, and explain why those facts would preclude 

summary judgment.” Tatum v. City & Cty. of San Francisco, 441 F.3d 1090, 1100 (9th 

Cir. 2006). A motion pursuant to this rule “must be brought before the summary judgment 

hearing.” U.S. v. Kitsap Physicians Serv., 314 F.3d 995, 1000 (9th Cir. 2002). Plaintiff 

did not bring a motion before the hearing date of August 26, 2019. Moreover, Plaintiff had 

numerous other opportunities—in her Opposition to State Farm’s summary judgment 

motion, in the Joint Status Report, and in her Objection—to provide the necessary affidavit 

specifying facts necessitating further discovery, but failed to do so. As such, Plaintiff is 

not entitled to Rule 56(d) relief. See id. (holding that “[f]ailure to comply with these 

requirements is a proper ground for denying relief” under Rule 56(d)). 

Second, the Court rejects Plaintiff’s attempt to transform a question of law into a 

question of fact to justify further discovery. Insurers violate the implied covenant of good 

faith and fair dealing if they fail to perform a reasonable investigation that would have 

disclosed facts showing that a claim was covered. See Jordan v. Allstate Ins., 148 Cal. 

App. 4th 1062, 1074 (2007). Plaintiff’s theory does not conform to this rule. Instead of 

arguing that State Farm failed to reasonably investigate the existence of facts showing her 

claim was covered, she contends that State Farm failed to reasonably investigate legal 

conclusions or impressions that could have supported coverage of her claim. Plaintiff cites 

no authority to support that the covenant of good faith and fair dealing requires insurers to 

conduct legal assessments of the retroactive application of a statute, or that the mere 

possibility of an unfavorable assessment createsthe type of factual dispute requiring further 

discovery under Rule 56. Thus, the fundamental issue in this case remains solely a question 

of law, which does not provide a proper basis for further discovery under Rule 56(d). See 

Swoger v. Rare Coin Wholesalers, 803 F.3d 1045, 1048 (9th Cir. 2015) (plaintiff did not 

satisfy Rule 56(d) request for further discovery where summary judgment determination 

“turned on a pure question of law”). 

Case 3:18-cv-00728-BAS-BGS Document 44 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 3
- 3 -

18cv728

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Plaintiff has not presented factsraising a genuine issue of State Farm’s liability under 

California law on her implied covenant claim, nor can Plaintiff discover such facts going 

forward. Accordingly, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 39) and 

DIRECTS the Clerk to enter judgment:

(1) GRANTING Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25) and 

DENYING IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 

No. 24) as to the breach of contract claim;

(2) GRANTING IN PART Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF 

No. 24) as to the good faith and fair dealing claim; and

(3) DENYING AS MOOT Defendant’s Ex Parte Motion for leave to respond to 

Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 40).

Upon entry of judgment, the Clerk is directed to close the case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 3, 2020

Case 3:18-cv-00728-BAS-BGS Document 44 Filed 02/03/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 3