NOT FOR PUB LIC ATION UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT
KEITH WARKENTIN, ) No. 15-16182 ) Pla intiff-Appe lla

nt, ) D.C . No. 1:10-c v-00221-SAB

) v. ) M EM OR A NDUM * ) FEDER ATED LIFE INSUR

ANC E ) C OM PANY, a M inne sota ) c orporation re giste re d to do busine ss ) in C a lifornia , ) ) De fe nda nt-Appe lle e , ) )

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Ea ste rn Distric t of C a lifornia Stanle y Albe rt B oone , M a gistra

te Judge , Pre s iding Subm itte d

April 17, 2017 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : FER

NANDEZ a

nd M UR GUIA, C irc uit Judge s, a nd C UR IEL, *** Distric t Judge
. 

# FIL ED
M AY08 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a

ppropria te for public a tion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3.

** T he pa ne l una nim ously finds this c a se suita

ble for de c ision without ora l argum e nt. Fe d. R . App. P. 34(a )(2).

*** The Honora

ble Gonz a l o P. C urie l, Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion.Ke ith W arke n t in a ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m ary judgm e nt in fa vor of Fe de ra t e d Life Insura nc e C om pa ny , on the c ounte rc l a im s for re sc ission
and de c la ra tory j udgm e n t tha

t Fe de ra te d ple d a ga inst W a rke ntin a fte r he file d a

n
a c tion a ga inst Fe de ra te d

whe n it re fuse d to m ake furthe r paym e nts unde r a disa bility inc om e polic y that it ha d issue d to him . W e a ffirm
. Fe de ra t e d sought re sc ission a nd de c la ra tory re lie f on the ba sis tha

t W arke ntin ha d m a de a

fra udule nt m isre pre s e ntation whe n he a pplie d for a disa bility inc om e polic y . At the thre shold, W arke n tin a sse rts tha t Fe de ra te d
wa ive d its right to re sc ind be c a use it did not a sse rt the right in a tim e ly fa shion. 1 W e disa gre e . Assum ing tha t W arke ntin’ s a sse rtion wa s itse lf prope rly ra i se d at the distric t c o urt, a

dubious proposition, 2 the re c o rd fully supporte d the distric t c ourt’ s

1 Our c onside ra tion of this a nd the othe r issue s we a ddre ss is, a s the pa rtie s a gre e d, e sse ntia lly

ba s e d upon there c ord a

n d the m otion pa

pe rs file d be fore the distric t c o urt at the tim e se t for he aring the sum m ary judgm e nt m otion in M arc h 2012, inc luding W a

rke ntin’ s la

te -file d opposition to the sum m ary judgm e nt m otion. Thedistric t c ourt did, howe ve r, a lso c onside r Fe d e ra te d’ s re ply in support of the m otion a

nd som e a dditiona l brie fing on the la w . Inc ide nta l ly , the distric t c ourt did not a

buse its disc re t ion whe n it de te rm ine d tha t W arke ntin’ s opposition ha d be e n untim e ly

file d a nd tha t the untim e line ss wa s not due to e xc usa ble ne gle c t. Se e A hanc hian v . Xe non Pic ture s, Inc

. , 624 F.3d 1253, 1258, 1261 (9th C ir. 2010). In any e v e nt, the distric t c ourt did c onside r the opposition.

2 He did not ra ise it in his re sponsiveple a ding. Se e Fe d. R . C i v. P. 8(c )(1); se e a lso W

ood v . Mily ard , 566 U.S. 463, __, 132 S. Ct. 1826, 1832, 182 L. Ed. 2d 733 (2012). 2de te rm i nation tha t Fe de ra te d ha d insuffic ie nt knowle dge to se e k re sc ission be fore the a c tion wa s file d, a

nd sim ila rly supporte d

the de te rm ination tha

t W a rke ntin’ s
m isre pre se ntations ha d, the m se lve s, suc c e ssfully de p rive d Fe de ra te d of tha t knowle dge
. 3 On the m e rits, our re vie wof the re c o rd a s a whole 4 satisfie s us tha

t W arke ntin did m ake m a te ria l fa lse re pre s e ntations re ga rding his he a lth a

n d did so

“ willfully . . . with knowle dge of [the ir] fa lsity .” 5 Fe de ra te d did ha ve the right to
re sc ind in c a s e of fra

u d, a n d prope rly

e x e rc ise d tha

t right he re . Se e Unite d Fid. LifeIns. C

o. v . Eme rt , 49 C a l. App. 4th 941, 946, 57 C a l. R ptr. 2d 14, 18 (1996);
se e a lso C a l. Ins. C ode § 359. Thedistric t c ourt did not err in de c iding tha t the re

3 Se e Olse n v . Idaho State

Bd. of Me d. , 363 F.3d 916, 922 (9th C ir. 2004); se e also C e lote x C orp. v . C atre t t , 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Ande r

son v . Libe rty

Lobby , Inc

. , 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).

4 Se e Frie dman v . Liv e N

ation Me rc h., Inc

. , 833 F.3d 1180, 1185 (9th C ir. 2016).
5 Se e C

u m mings v . Fire

Ins. Ex c h. , 202 C a l. App. 3d 1407, 1418, 249 C a l. R ptr. 568, 574 (1988); se e also Te lford v . N .Y. LifeIns. C

o. , 9 C a l. 2d 103, 106–07, 69 P.2d 835, 837–38 (1937) (pe r c uriam ); Lunardi v . Gre at-W . LifeAssuranc e C

o. , 37 C a l. App. 4th 807, 820, 44 C a l. R ptr. 2d 56, 62 (1995). Am ong othe r things, while W a rke ntin indic ate d tha

t he ha d not se e n a

c hiropra c tor during thepre vious five y e ars, he ha d, in fa c t , se e n one on forty oc c a sions for lowe r ba c k proble m s. 3wa s no m a te ria l disputeof fa c t on tha t issue
. 6 AFFIR M ED.

6 W arke ntin a s se rts tha

t e ve n if the polic y

wa s prope rly

re sc inde d, his othe r c a use s of a c tion survive . Howe ve r, he ove rlooks the fa c t tha t re sc ission m e ans tha

t the p olic y wa s void a

b initio. Se e Impe rial C

as. & Inde m. C

o. v . Sogomonian , 198 C a l. App. 3d 169, 184, 243 C a l. R ptr. 639, 646–47 (1988). The re fore , e sse ntia lly
“ a l l rights of the

insure d . . . [we re ] e xtinguishe d .” Id. a t 184, 243 C a l . R

ptr. a t 647. B e c a

use a ll of his c la im s hinge d on the e xiste nc e of a polic y , the y

we re e xtinguishe d a l ong with it. 4