NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v. ELLERY CHACKSFIELD,

Defendant

- Appellee. No. 13

- 55854 D.C. No. 3:11

- cv - 02871

- AJB

- JMA

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Anthony J. Battaglia, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted May 5, 2015 Pasadena, California Before: FISHER, BEA, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges. Allstate Insurance Company brought this action seeking a declaration that Gordon Hammers ’s umbrella insurance policy did not cover damages arising out of a car accident with Ellery Chacksfield for which Gordon’s brother Robert had been found responsible be cause Robert was not a “resident of [Gordon’s] household

. ” In response to cross

- motions for summary judgment, t he district court

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3. 

# FILED

MAY 20 2015 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2

concluded that Robert was a resident of Gordon’s household and granted summary judgment to Chacksfield

. We reverse and remand for entry of summary judgment in favor of Allstate. Residents of the same household must live “under one roof or within a common curtilage .” Jacobs v. Fire Ins. Exch. , 278 Cal. Rptr. 52, 58 (Ct. App. 1991)

. Robert and Gordon did n ot live “under one roof” because Robert lived in a separate trailer and had been prohibited to enter Gordon’s house , and we disagree with the district court’s conclusion that Robert and Gordon lived within a common curtilage. California courts seem to apply the same definition of “curtilage” in both the insurance coverage and Fourth Amendment context s . See People v. DiMatteo , No. A105694, 2005 WL 20005, at *4 (Cal. Ct. App. Jan. 5, 2005) (unpublished) (citing Jacobs , 278 Cal. Rptr. at 57 n.4) ; see also Emp’rs Ins. of Wausau v. Granite State
Ins. Co. , 330 F.3d 1214, 1220 n.8 (9th Cir. 2003) (noting that “we may consider unpublished state decisions, even though such opinions have no precedential value”). Under that definition, to determine the extent of a home’s curtilage , courts consider “(1) ‘ the proximity of the area claimed to be curtilage to the home ’ ; (2)

‘ whether the area is included within an enclosure surrounding the home ’; (3) ‘ the3

nature of the uses to which the area is put ’ ; and (4) ‘ the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by. ’ ” People v. Lieng , 119 Cal. Rptr. 3d 200, 207 (Ct. App. 2010) (quoting United States v. Dunn , 480 U.S. 294, 301 (1987)). Applying these factors, we conclude that Robe rt and Gordon did not live within a common curtilage. First, Robert’s trailer was more than 100 feet from Gordon’s home, and “even in rural areas, it is rare for curtilage to extend more than 100 feet beyond the home.” Id. at 208. Second, Robert’s trail er was enclosed within its own fence . Third, Robert’s trailer and Gordon’s home did not share uses in common

. Thus, three factors weigh decisively in favor of the conclusion that Robert and Gordon did not share a common curtilage. The fourth factor is n ot obviously to the contrary, and would not outweigh the other three factors even if it

were. W e reverse the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of Chacksfield, and remand with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of Allstate.
REVERSED and REMANDED.