NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALI BARARSANI,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. HDI GLOBAL INSURANCE COMPANY, a Illinois corporation,

Defendant-Appellee, and DOES, 1-10, inclusive,

Defendant. No. 21-56325 D.C. No. 2:21-cv-03679-PA-SHK
MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Percy Anderson, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Subm itted February 7, 2023 Pasadena, California 

# FILED
FEB 27 2023 M OLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.Before: BOGGS, * * IKUTA, and DESAI, Circuit Judges.

Ali Bararsani appeals the denial of his partial m otion for sum m ary judgm ent, the grant of the m otion for sum m ary judgm ent in favor of HDI Global Insurance Com pany (HDI), and the denial of his m otion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm
. HDI has no duty to defend Bararsani in the lawsuit brought by Arturo Rubinstein because Bararsani failed to show that the lawsuit includes “claim s that create a potential for indem nity under the policy.” L.A. Lakers, Inc. v. Fed. Ins. Co. , 869 F.3d 795, 805 (9th Cir. 2017) (citing Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. MV Transp. , 36 Cal. 4th 643, 654 (2005)); see also Hartford Cas. Ins. Co. v. Swift Distrib. , Inc. , 59 Cal. 4th 277, 287 (2014). Bararsani’s insurance policy provides coverage for a “Claim ,” defined as “a dem a nd for m oney,” that results from “a Wrongful Act,” defined as “[a] negligent act, error, or om ission,” com m itted during the policy

* * The Honorable Danny J. Boggs, United States Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation. 2period. 1 In his briefing and at oral argum ent, Bararsani argued that the requests for

adm ission received after the district court’s partial sum m ary judgm ent order establish the potential for coverage. The requests, however, were not part of the record before the district court when it denied Bararsani’s m otion for partial
sum m ary judgm ent, and this court does not consider them in reviewing that decision. Moreover, Bararsani concedes that the com plaint does not allege that he
com m itted a Wrongful Act as defined by the policy after March 14, 2018. Bararsani also fails to point the court to extrinsic evidence of such a Wrongful Act or show that one is “fairly inferable” m e rely from his continued representation of Rubinstein through April 25, 2018. See Scottsdale Ins. Co. , 36 Cal. 4th at 654. Therefore, he has not identified a claim that gives rise to a duty to defend. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Bararsani’s m otion for reconsideration, see Kona Enters., Inc. v. Est. of Bishop , 229 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2000), because Bararsani knew of the inform ation contained in the requests for

1 The insurance policy covers, in relevant part: “Claim s as a result of a Wrongful Act in perform ing Insured Services for anyone other than You.” The policy defines “Claim ” to m e a n “a dem and for m oney or for services that alleges a negligent act, error, or om ission in the rendering of or failure to render Insured Services.” Finally, the policy defines “Wrongful Act” i n relevant part as: “[T] he following conduct or alleged conduct by You or any person or organization for whom Y ou are legally liable: 1. a negligent, act, error, or om ission.” The policy provides that the coverage period was March 14, 2018 through March 14, 2021. 3adm ission at the tim e of sum m ary judgm ent and could have raised that inform ation

to the district court, see Banister v. Davis , 140 S. Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020) (“[C] ourts will not address new argum ents or evidence that the m oving party could have raised before the decision issued.”). And contrary to Bararsani’s contention, the district court properly considered all of the m a terial facts before it. AFFIRMED.

4