NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EMEKA NDIGWE ,

Plaintiff

- Appellant , v. ALLSTATE INDEMNITY COMPANY, ERRONEOUSLY SUED AS ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY ,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 15

- 56813 D.C. No. 2:15

- cv - 06758

- FMO

- AS

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Fernando M. Olguin, District Judge Argued and Submitted May 12 , 2017 Submission Vacated June 20, 2017 Re
- Submitted October 13 , 2017 Pasadena, California Before: CLIFTON and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges, and DONATO, ** District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The Honorable James Donato, United States District Judge for the Northern District of California, sitting by designation. 

# FILED
OCT 17 2017 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

Plaintiff Emeka Ndigwe appeals the dismissal of his lawsuit against D efendant Allstate Indemnity Company over uninsured motor ist coverage for an auto accident

. At our request after oral argument , the district court clarified that the case was dismissed as a sanction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and affirm. In the case’s original posture before us , the specific basis for the dismissal was somewhat unclear. O n October 22, 2015, t he district court entered a first dismissal order under Rule 12(b)(6), and ordered Ndigwe to file an amended complaint by November 2, 2015

. The court expressly cautioned Ndigwe “ that failure to timely file a First Amended Complaint may result in this action being dismissed with out prejudice for failure to prosecute and/or failu re to comply with a court order ” under Rule 41(b). Ndigwe did no t file an amended complaint or advise the district court that he did not intend to amend . O n November 9, 2015 , the district court entered a second and final order dismissing the case without prejudice “for lack of prosecution and failure to comply with th e orders of the court
. ” W e asked the district court to clarify whether it intended to dismiss the complaint as a sanction under Rule 41(b) or for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). The district court responded with a “Clarification Order” confirming that the action was dismissed as a sanction under Rule 41(b) for Ndigwe’s failure to3

comply with the order requiring amendment or to otherwise prosecute the case

. S ee Harris v. Man g um , 863 F.3d 1133 , 1142 (9th Cir. 2017) (“ When a district court dismisses an action because the plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint after being given leave to do so and has not notified the court of his intention not to file an amended complaint, we may deem the dismissal to be for failure to comply with a co urt order based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). ” (citations omitted))

. The district court also confirmed that the final d ismissal was without prejudice. W e review for abuse of discretion the dismissal of an action for failure to comply with th e district court’s order requiring submission of an amended complaint. Ferdik v. Bonzelet , 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992)

. Ndigwe’s failure to respond in any way to the district court’s amendment order warranted dismissal. A plaintiff’s inaction in the face of the court’s “ultimatum

-- either by amending the complaint or by indicating to the court that it will not do so

-- is properly met with the sanction of a Rule 41(b) dismissal.” Edwards v. Marin Park, Inc. , 356 F.3d 1058, 1065 (9th Cir. 2004). The specific factors applied to a Rule 41(b) dismissal point to the same result. Before dismissing a case as a sanction , a district court should consider: “(1) the public ’ s interest in expeditious resolution of lit igation; (2) the court ’ s need to manage its docket; (3) the risk of prejudice to the other party; (4) the public4

policy favoring the disposition of cases on their merits; and (5) the availability of less drastic sanctions.” Dreith v. Nu Image, Inc. , 648 F .3d 779, 788 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). We may affirm when our independent review of the record indicates that the district court did not abuse its discretion under these factors, even though the court may not have made explicit f indings at the time of dismissal

. Yourish v. Cal. Amplifier , 191 F.3d 983, 990 (9th Cir. 1999 ) (internal citation omitted). While the district court’s final dismissal order did not address the factors, its c larification o rder discussed them in detail, an d we find nothing in the record indicating that the distric t court abused its discretion. Consequently, we find that the district court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Ndigwe’s case under Rule 41(b)

. We express no opinion about the merits of his claims against Allstate or the district court’s analysis under Rule 12(b)(6). AFFIRMED .No. 15-56813 N d i gw e v . Allstate

Inde mnity

C o . C LIFTON, C irc uit Judge , c o nc urring: I a gre e with the m a

jority tha t the distric t c ourt ha d the a uthority to dism iss the a c tion a s a sa

nc tion unde r R

ule 41(b). I the re fore c onc ur e n tire ly in the re sult
a nd re a soning e xpre sse d in the m a jority ’ s disposition. I write se pa

ra te ly , howe ve r, to e xpre s s m y c onc e rn with the

distric t c ourt’ s unde rly ing inte rpre ta tion of C a lifornia insura nc e la w; na m e ly , tha t Ndigwe fa ile d to a l le ge uninsure d m otorist c ove ra ge unde r C a lifornia Insura nc e C ode se c tion 11580.2(b) a

nd the c o rre sponding uninsure d m otorist provisions in his insura nc e polic y with Allsta

t e . The a pplic a tion of C a l ifornia

insura nc e la w is ultim a te ly

a que stion for the C a l ifornia c ourts, but in m

y individua l vie w the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre ta tion of the polic y and of C a lifornia

la w wa s not pe rsua sive a nd should not be ta ke n for gra

nte d if a n d whe n the que stion a

rise s a ga in. In pa

rtic ula r, I be lie ve that the de finition of " uninsure d ve hic le " in se c tion 11580.2(b) inc l ude s a m otor
ve hic le tha

t ha s a pplic a ble insura nc e if the insure r e ithe r de nie s c ove ra ge or re fuse s to a d m it c ove ra ge . B e c a use the m e rits of Ndigwe ’ s c la im re st on c o nflic ting inte rpre ta tions of the uninsure d m otorist provisions in his insura nc e polic y , it is he lpful to first brie fly sum m a riz e the ba c k g round C a lifornia la w gove rning the inte rpre ta tion of



# FIL ED
OCT 17 2017 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

1insura

nc e polic ie s. As re le va

n t he re , the re are two princ iple s tha t c o urts m u st follow whe n inte rpre ting insura nc e polic ie s unde r C a lifornia la w. First, le gitim a te unc e rta intie s re ga rding insura

nc e c ove ra ge m

ust be inte rpre te d in fa

v or of the insure d. Spe c ific a lly , “ [C a lifornia ] ge ne ra l ly re solve [s]
a m biguitie s in fa

vor of c ove ra ge . Sim ila

rly , [C a lifornia ] ge ne ra l ly inte rpre t[s] the
c ove ra ge c la

use s of insura

nc e polic ie s broa dly , in orde r to prote c t the obje c tive ly
re a s ona ble e xpe c ta tions of theinsure d.” Montrose C he m. C orp. v . Admiral Ins. C o. , 10 C a l. 4th 645, 667 (1995) (c ita tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). This princ iple of inte rpre ta tion is ba se d on dua l princ iple s of c ontra c t la w a nd fa irne s s. B e c a

use the insura

nc e c om pa ny ordina rily dra fts its polic ie s, a

nd be c a use the i nsure d pa

rty ordina rily ha s little to no opportunity to ba rga in for m odific a tions of the polic y la

ngua ge , polic y

la ngua ge m ust be c o nstrue d a ga inst the dra fting insura nc e c om pa ny . Id. Se c ond, insura

nc e polic i e s m

ust be inte rpre te d in a c c orda nc e with the ir pla in
a nd c om m on m e a n i ng. Unde r this princ iple , “ the polic y should be re a d a s a la y m a n would re a d it a

n d not a s it m ight be ana ly z e d by an a t torne y

or a n insura nc e e xpe rt.” De l

gado v . He ritage

Life Ins. C

o. , 157 C a l . App. 3d 262, 271 (C a l. C t. App. 1984) (c ita tion a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om itte d). “ [I] f
se m a ntic a lly

pe rm issible , the c o ntra c t will be give n suc h c onstruc tion a s will fa irly

2a c hie ve its obje c t of providing inde m nity for the loss to whic h the insura nc e
re la te s.” Id. (c ita

tions a nd inte rna l quota

tion m a rks om i tte d ). Turning now to the

spe c i fic polic y

provision a

t issue he re , Ndigwe ’ s polic y provide s c ove ra ge for injurie s c a use d by c a r a c c ide nts involving a n “ uninsure d
a uto.” The polic y

de fine s “ un insure d a

uto” to inc lude an y

“ m otor ve hic l e for whic h the insure r de nie s c o ve ra ge .” This de finition is ba s e d on the “ uninsure d
m otor ve h ic le ” de finitions in se c tion 11580.2(b), whic h a re inc orpora te d by
re fe re n c e into a ll insura

nc e polic ie s in C a lifornia

. Se e C a l. C a s. Inde mn. Ex c h. v

. Hosk in , 82 C a l . App. 3d 789, 794 (C a l . C t. App. 1978) (“ Se c tion 11580.2 be c om e s
a pa rt of e ve ry insura

n c e polic y

a s if it we re writte n

into its provisions.”

). As re le va nt he re , se c tion 11580.2(b) de fine s an “ uninsure d m otor ve hic le ” to inc l ude (1) any

m otor ve hic le for whic h the re is no lia bility insura nc e a pplic a ble a t the t im e of the a c c ide nt, a s we ll a s (2) a ny m o tor ve hic le for whic h the re is lia bility insura nc e a pplic a ble a t the tim e of the a c c ide nt but theinsura nc e c om pa ny la te r de nie s c ove ra ge the re unde r. Se e C a l. Ins. C ode § 11580.2(b) (“ As use d in this
se c t ion, ‘ uninsure d m otor ve hic le ’ m e a n s a m o tor ve hic le with re spe c t to the
owne rship, m a inte na

nc e or use of whic h the re is no bodily injury lia bility insura nc e . . . a pplic a ble a t the tim e of the a c c ide nt, or the re is the a pplic a ble insura nc e . . . but the c o m

pa ny writing theinsura

nc e . . . de nie s c ove ra ge

3the re unde r.” ). To a pply the re le va

nt provisions of the

sta tute , we c a n unde rsta

nd
se c t ion 11580.2(b) to a sk thre e que stions to de te rm ine if the re is uninsure d
m otorist c ove ra ge : (1) whe the r the tortfe a sor ha d lia bility insura n c e ; (2) whe the r the i nsura nc e wa s a pplic a b le a t the tim e of the a c c ide nt; a nd (3) if the insura

nc e
wa s a pplic a ble a t the tim e of the a c c ide nt, whe the r the tortfe a sor’ s insura nc e
c om pa ny la te r de nie d c ove ra ge unde r the polic y . In de te rm i ning tha

t Ndigwe fa ile d

to pla u sibly a lle ge uninsure d m o torist
c ove ra ge , the distric t c o urt he ld tha t, unde r se c tion 11580.2(b), the re c a n be no
suc h c o ve ra ge whe n, a s he re , the tortfe a sor ha d insura nc e a t the tim e of the
a c c ide nt, but its insura

nc e c om pa ny la te r de nie s c o ve ra ge for a third-pa rty c la im
a rising out of the

a c c ide nt. In doing so, the distric t c o urt re lie d prim a rily

on the C a lifornia C ourt of Appe a l’ s de c isions in C alifornia C

asualty Inde mnity

Ex c hange

v . Hosk in , 82 C a l. App. 3d 789, 797 (C a l . C t . App. 1978), a nd D e nny v . St. Paul Guardian Insuranc e C

o. , 196 C a l. App. 3d 73, 77-78 (C a l. C t. App. 1987), whic h he ld tha t, for purpose s of se c tion 11580.2(b), the re is no uninsure d m otorist
c ove ra ge whe n the insure d pa rty ’ s c ove re d ve hic le ha s no “ a pplic a ble ” insura

nc e a t the t im e of the a c c ide nt due to e xc lusions in tha t pa rty ’ s insura

nc e polic y . The distric t c ourt’ s re a soning, howe ve r, is not we ll supporte d by C a lifornia la w.
4As disc usse d a bove , C a lifornia

la w re quire s tha

t we inte rpre t the te rm s of Ndigwe ’ s polic y

in a c c orda

nc e with the i r pla in m e a ning, c o n struing a m biguitie s in fa vor of Ndigwe . In light of the se inte rpre tive princ iple s, it a ppe a rs tha

t Ndigwe did in fa c t a lle g e uninsure d m otorist c ove ra ge he re . To re vie w, Ndigwe ’ s polic y de fine s a n “ uninsure d a

uto” to inc lude any

“ m otor ve h ic le for whic h the insure r de nie s c ove ra ge .” Sim i la rly , se c tion 11580.2(b) de fine s a n “ uninsure d m otor
ve hic le ” to inc lude an y

m otor ve hic le for whic h

“ the re is the a

pplic a ble insura nc e . . . but the c om

pa ny writing the insura

nc e . . . de nie s c ove ra ge the re unde r.” Tha t lite ra lly de s c ribe s wha

t a lle ge dly ha ppe ne d he re . Ndgiwe wa s re a r-e nde d by
a nothe r drive r. At the tim e of the a c c ide nt, the othe r c a r wa s insure d by

Allia nc e Unite d Insura nc e C om pa ny (Allia nc e ). Allia

nc e , howe v e r, la te r de n ie d c ove ra ge for the a c c ide nt, purporte dly be c a use its insure d fa ile d

to c oope ra te in Allia

nc e ’ s inve stiga tion into the a c c ide nt. As a lle ge d, the se fa c ts a re suffic ie nt to trigge r uninsure d m otorist c ove ra g e unde r the te rm s of Ndigwe ’ s polic y . It is not a t a ll surprising tha

t Ndigwe ha d

a re a sona ble e x pe c ta tion tha

t the uninsure d m otorist c ove ra g e tha t he pa id for would c ove r his situa tion. Ndigwe ha d insura

nc e , he wa s in a

n a c c ide nt tha

t wa sn’ t his fa

ult, he suffe re d da

m a ge s, the drive r re sponsible for the a c c ide nt did not c ove r Ndigwe ’ s dam a g e s with insura nc e , for a re a son tha

t wa sn’ t Ndigwe ’ s fa

ult, e ithe r, a

nd y e t it wa s Ndigwe who wa s le ft

5holding the

ba g. Ndigwe ’ s inte rpre ta tion is c onsiste nt with tha t of R o be rt C . C lifford’ s C alifornia Uninsure

d Motorist Law , a

“ le a d ing tre a tise on [C a lifornia ] insura nc e la w.” Farme rs Ins. Ex c h. v . K im , 2013 W L 1261746, a

t *3 (C a l. C t. App. 2013) (unpublishe d). As re le va nt he re , the tre a tise provide s the following a na ly sis
re ga rding uninsure d m otorist c la im s a rising out of a

c o v e ra ge dispute be twe e n the tortfe a sor a

nd his insura

nc e c om pa ny : In Ins[uranc e ] C ode § 11580.2(b), the de finition o f “ uninsure d ve hic l e ” inc lude s a m otor ve hic le that has ap pl ic a ble insura

nc e if the i nsure r e ithe r de nie s c o v e ra ge or re fuse s to a dm it c ove ra ge e x c e pt c onditiona l ly or with re s e rva tion. The purpose o f this d e finition is to give the injure d pa rty a right to proc e e d unde r a n uninsure d m otorist p rovision if the re is a c ove ra ge d i s pute be twe e n the tortfe a sor a nd his o r he r insure r. . . . If the a dve rse drive r’ s lia

bility insure r m a inta ins that it s p ol i cy doe s n ot furnish c ove ra ge for the a c c ide nt, t he “ insure d” ve hic le is a n “ uninsure d” m otor ve hic le

. 1 C lifford, C a l. Uninsure d M otorist La w § 6.70 (2017). In the sa m e se c tion, the tre a tise provide s tha t whe n the tortfe a sor’ s insura nc e
c om pa ny de nie s c o v e ra ge for fa ilure to c oope ra te in the inve stiga tion of the
a c c ide nt, the tortfe a sor be c om e s a n uninsure d

m otorist for purpose s of se c tion 11580.2(b): A c om m on situa tion involving the de nia l of c ove ra ge b y the tortfe a sor’ s insure r is whe n the t o r t f eas or bre a c h e s the c oope ra tion c la use of the p o l ic y a n d re fuse s to a ssist in his d e fe nse . . . . C le a rly , if the ins u r er de nie s c ove ra ge be c a

use of the b re a c h o f t h e c oope ra tion c la use , the 6ve hic le s be c om e s “ uninsure d.”

Id. Tha t is e xa c tly

the situa tion he re . The pre c e de nts on whic h

the distric t c ourt re lie d , Hosk in a n d De nny , do not spe a k to this situa

tion. As a

nothe r fe de ra l distric t c ourt in C a lifornia ha s obse rve d, Hosk in did not discuss the spe c ific provision in se c tion 11580.2(b) a t issue in this
c a se : tha t is, whe the r the tortfe a sor’ s insura nc e c om pa ny “ de nie [d] c ove ra ge .” Safe c o Ins. C

o. of Ame ric a v . N

adalsk y , 2013 W L 12114613, a

t *3 (C .D. C a l. Fe b

. 4, 2013) (unpublishe d). R a the r, Hosk in a nd De nny inste a d inte rpre te d the provision in se c tion 11580.2(b) tha t a ddre sse s whe the r the tortfe a sor ha d insura nc e

“ a p plic a ble a t the tim e of the a c c ide nt.” In inte rpre ting this provision, Hosk in a nd De nny he ld only

tha t “ the que stion whe the r a lia bility polic y

is ‘ a pplic a ble ’ a t the tim e of the a c c ide nt is re solve d without re ga

rd to polic y

e xc lusions pre c luding pa y m e n t to a

n injure d insure d.” Farme rs Ins. Ex c h. v . Alle n , 2005 W L 668821, a t *6 (C a l. C t. App. 2005) (unpublishe d). For e xa m ple , in Hosk

in , the insure d c la im a nt (a m othe r) wa s de nie d uninsure d m otorist c ove ra ge for injurie s susta ine d in a c a r a c c ide nt while she wa s a pa sse nge r in he r c a r that wa s be ing drive n by he r son. Hosk

in , 82 C a l. App. 3d a t 791-92. Simila

rly , in De nny , the insure d c la im a n t wa s de n ie d uninsure d
m otorist c ove ra ge for injurie s susta ine d in a c a r a c c ide nt while she wa s a pa sse nge r
7in a substitute ve hic le tha

t she wa s using a s he r own c a r a t the tim e . De n ny , 196 C a l. App. 3d a

t 75. In both c a se s, the c ourt he ld tha t the c la im a n ts c o uld not
e sta blish uninsure d m otorist c ove ra ge for the ir injurie s be c a use the re we re spe c ific polic y e xc lusions in the

c la i m a nts’ own re spe c tive polic ie s tha t pre c lude d c ove ra ge for a n y injurie s to the nam e d insure d or m e m be rs of the ir house hold. Hosk in , 82 C a l. App. 3d a

t 793, 797-98; De nny , 196 C a l. App. 3d a t 75, 78. In re

je c ting
c ove ra ge , Hosk

ins a nd De n ny we re a im e d

a t e nforc ing spe c ific polic y e xc l usions in the c la i m a nts’ own polic ie s: na m e ly , by prohibiting c la im a nts from “ a tte m pt[ing] to utiliz e e xc lusions within the lia bility se c tions of a

n insure d’ s own a

utom obile polic y to trigge r the insure d’ s uninsure d m otorist c ove ra ge .” A lle n , 2005 W L 668821, a t *5. Tha t wa s not the situa

t ion he re , howe ve r. Unlike the c la im a nts in Hosk in
a nd De nny , Ndigwe wa s not a tte m pting to side -ste p his own polic y e x c lusions by inste a d se e k ing c ove ra g e unde r the uninsure d m otorist provisions in his polic y . Se e Hosk in , 82 C a l. App. 3d a

t 797 (re je c ting c la im

for uninsure d m o torist
c ove ra ge “ w he re a

c a r is insure d unde r the ge n e ra l te rm s of a polic y ” but the polic y is found “ ina

pplic a ble to the spe c i fic c la im

c re a te d by

the a c c ide nt” ). R a the r, Ndigwe sought uninsure d m otorist c ove ra g e be c a

use the c a r that

re a r-e nde d him
wa s insure d a t the tim e of the a c c i de nt, but Allia nc e la te r de nie d

c ove ra ge through

8no fa

ult of Ndigwe ’ s. Hosk

in a nd De nny sim

ply do not a pply to the s e fa c ts, a

nd I do not be lie ve tha

t it wa s c orre c t to e xte nd Hosk in a n d De nny in the m a nne r done so by the distric t c ourt. Tha t doe s not c ha

n g e the outc om e of this c a se , be c a use the dism issa l of Ndigwe ’ s c om

pla int is a ffirm e d ba se d on the fa ilure to re spond to the dism issa l without pre

judic e without e i the r a n

a m e nde d c om pla i nt or a notic e to the distric t
c ourt tha t Ndigwe e le c te d

to sta nd on his prior filing. B ut our a ffirm a nc e of the ultim a te dism issa l should not be unde rstood to a ffirm

the insura

nc e la w re a soning be hind the initia l dism issa l. I, for one , c onc lude tha t Ndigwe should ha

v e re c e ive d be ne fits unde r the uninsure d m o torist c ove ra ge .

9