N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
REJEANNE B ER

NIER , Plaintiff - Appe lla nt,
v. TR AVELER S PR O PER TY C ASUALTY INSUR ANC E C OM PANY, INC ., De fe nda

nt - Appe lle e , JESSIE C R OTEAU a

nd IC S PR OFESSIONAL SER

VIC ES, INC ., Interve nor-De fe nda nts - Appe lle e s. No. 12-56126 D.C . No. 3:11-c v-00078-JLS-R B B
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Southe rn Distric t of C a lifornia Ja nis L. Sa m m artino, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Subm itte d Se pte m

be r 2, 2015 ** San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : C LIFTON, N.R . SM ITH, a nd C HR ISTEN, C irc uit Judge s. 

# FIL ED SEP 14 2015 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S
. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

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

by 9th C ir. R . 36-3. ** The pa

ne l una nim ously c onc lude s this c a se is suita ble for de c ision without oral a

rgum e nt. Se eFe d. R . App. P. 34(a)(2).R e

je anne B e rnie r a

ppe a ls the distric t c ourt’ s gra nt of sum m a ry judgm e nt to Trave l e rs Prope rty C a sua lty Insura nc e C om pa ny (“ Trave l e rs” ), the de nia l of he r
m otion to re m and the c a se to sta te c ourt, a nd othe r various disc ove ry orde rs e nte re d by the m a gistra

te judge be low. This c ourt ha s jurisdic t ion unde r 28 U.S.C
. § 1291. W e a ffirm
. A. Summary

J udgme nt The distric t c ourt did not err by c onc luding tha

t B e rnie r’ s bre a c h of c ontra c t
and ba d fa ith c la im s we re not tim e ly . B e rnie r’ s insura nc e polic y re quire d tha

t a ll suits a g a i nst Tra

v e le rs re ga

rding he r polic y

be brought within one

y e ar of the
oc c urre nc e c a

using loss or da

m a ge . This lim

ita tion pe riod be ga

n upon B e rnie r’ s

“ re a sona ble disc ove ry

of the loss,”not upon her re a l iz ation of theloss’ s le g a l signific anc e . Prude ntial-LMI C omme rc ial Ins. v . Supe rior C ourt , 798 P.2d 1230, 1238 (C a l. 1990) (in ba

nk)
. The distric t c ourt did not err by c onc luding tha t the late st tha t B e rnie r c o u ld ha

ve re a sona

bly disc ove re d

the dam a ge to he r prope rty
wa s Oc tobe r 2007. This c onc lusion finds a m ple support in the re c ord: (1) B e rnie r witne s se d he r son, Je ssie C rote a u (and his c onstruc tion c om pa ny , IC S Profe ssiona l Se rvic e s, Inc .) re m ove he r hom e ’ s roof in August 2007; (2) in Se pte m be r 2007, B e rnie r disc ove re d wate r dam a ge to he r prope rty following a

he avy ra instorm , a s e vide nc e d by

he r filing of a

c la im with Tra ve le rs; a nd (3) in Oc tobe r 2007, B e rnie r
2sue d

Je ssie for the dam a ge to he r hom e . Thus, a s a m atte r of la

w , the inc e ption of the l oss c ould not ha

ve oc c urre d a

ny late r tha n Oc tobe r 2007. Ac c ordingly , the distric t c o urt did not err by c onc luding tha

t the pre se nt a c tion, whic h wa s not file d until Oc tobe r 29, 2010, wa s not file d within one y e ar and wa s not time l y . The distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by

c onc luding tha

t Tra ve le rs wa s not e quita

bly e stoppe d from

a sse rting its tim

e -bar de fe nse . 1 Trave le rs did not do a nything or fa il to do a

nything tha

t pre ve nte d B e rnie r from

bringing her c la im within thede signa

te d tim e pe riod. Se e C

ity of Hollister v . Monte re

y Ins. C o. , 81 C a l. R ptr. 3d 72, 98 (C t. App. 2008). In fac t, B e rnie r brought a n insura nc e c la im base d upon the

e x ac t same p rope rty damage , a nd sue d he r son Je ssie for tha t sa m e dam a ge , within the de signa t e d tim e pe riod. This shows tha t B e rnie r wa s a

w are of the d am a ge to he r hom e , wa s a ble to file both insura

nc e c la im s a

nd la wsuits during the re le va nt tim e pe riod, a

nd tha t she c hose not to file a

m a l ic ious mi sc hie f or
va nda lism c la im
. None of the inform ation B e rnie r a lle g e s tha t Tra ve l e rs should have disc lose d to he r wa s (1) indic ative of Je ssie ’ s m otive s or (2) not a lre a dy
ava ila ble to B e rnie r in som e othe r form . The re fore , be c a use Trave le rs did not

1 “ B e c a u se e stoppe l is a

n e quita ble c onc e p t re quiring thee xe rc ise of the distric t c o urt’ s disc re t ion, we re vie w ‘ the distric t c o urt’ s re je c tion of a

ppe lla nts’ e quita ble e s toppe l a

rgum e nt unde r the a

buse of disc re tion sta

nda rd.’ ” K ingman Re e f Atoll Inv

s., L.L.C . v . Unite d State

s , 541 F.3d 1189, 1195 (9th C ir. 2008) (quoting Hoe

f le r v . Babbitt , 139 F.3d 726, 727 (9th C ir. 1998)). 3induc e B e rnie r’ s la te filing, thedistric t c ourt did not err by c onc luding tha

t the doc trine of e quita

ble e stoppe l wa s not a

pplic a ble to Tra ve l e rs. 2 B. Othe r Issue

s on Appe al 1. The distric t c ourt did not err in de ny ing B e rnie r’ s m otion to re m and the
c a se to sta

te c ourt. 3 Spe c ific a lly , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re tion by
re fusing to join M

r. Fre e dm a

n (B e rnie r’ s prior a

ttorne y ) to the pre se nt a c t ion. 4 B e rnie r doe s not c ha lle nge the distric t c ourt’ s c onc lusions tha t (1) M r. Fre e dm an wa s not a ne c e ssa ry pa rty to the c a se , a

n d (2) joinde r would involve the a ddition of
c la im s only

te nuously

re late d to thepre se nt a c tion. Furthe r, the distric t c ourt did

2 B e rnie r a lso a sse rte d

in he r c om

pla int a c ontra c tua l c onfide ntia l ity c la im
. Howe ve r, B e rnie r doe s not a rgue , at any point in her brie fing, tha

t the distric t c ourt e rre d by granting sum

m a ry judgm e nt to Tra

ve le rs on the c la im
. The re fore , be c a use she ha s fa ile d to a sse rt e rror, B e rnie r ha s wa ive d he r a ppe a l re ga

rding the c onfide ntia lity

c l a im
. S e eZuk lev . Re ge nts of Univ. of C

al. , 166 F.3d 1041, 1045 n.10 (9th C ir. 1999).

3 In a c c orda

nc e with our policy

to c onstrue pro se filings libera lly , E r ic k son v . Pardus , 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (pe r c uriam ), Trave le rs’ m otion to strike portions of B e rnie r’ s re ply brie f de a ling with B e rnie r’ s m otion to re m and, file d with this c ourt on July

26, 2013, is DENIED. 4 A distric t c ourt’ s “ [d] e nia l of a m o tion to re m and a

c a se to sta

te c ourt for la c k of re m ova l jurisdic tion is re vie we d by this C ourt de novo.” Unite d C omput. Sy s., Inc . v . AT & T C

orp. , 298 F.3d 756, 760 (9th C ir. 2002). Howe ve r, “ [a ] distric t c o urt’ s joinde r de c ision is gene ra lly re vie w e d unde r an a

buse of disc re tion sta nda rd,” with le g a l c onc lusions underly ing tha t de c ision be ing re vie w e d de novo. Disable d Rights Ac t ion C omm. v . Las Ve

gas Ev e n t s, Inc
. , 375 F.3d 861, 879 (9th C ir. 2004). 4not a

buse its disc re tion by

c onc luding tha

t “ B e rnie r’ s m o tion a

ppe ars de signe d sole ly to de stroy

fe d e ra l jurisdic tion,” an d “ he r de la y in re q ue s ting joinder is substa ntia l a nd une xc use d.” The se c onc lusions were not “ i llogic a l, im pla u sible [,] or without support in the

re c ord.” TrafficSc hool.c om, Inc . v . Edriv e r Inc
. , 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th C ir. 2011) (c iting Unite d State s v . Hink son , 585 F.3d 1247, 1262 (9th C ir. 2009) (e n ba

nc )). The re fore , the distric t c ourt did not a buse its disc re t ion by
re fusing to allow thejoinde r of a non-dive rse pa

rty and did not err by

de ny ing B e rnie r’ s m otion to re m and. 2. B e rnie r did not file

writte n obje c tions to e ithe r of the m a gistra te judge ’ s disc ove ry orde rs tha

t she atte m

pts to c ha l le nge on a

ppe a l. Ac c ordingly , B e rnie r ha s wa ive d a

ppe lla te re vie w of thoseorde rs. Se e Simpson v . Le ar Astronic s C orp. , 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th C ir. 1996) (“ [A] pa rty who fa ils to file

tim e ly obje c tions to a m a g istra

te judge ’ s nondispositive

orde r with thedistric t judge to whom the
c a se is a ssigne d forfe its its right to a ppe lla te re vie w of tha

t orde r.” ); Fe d. R
. C iv. P. 72(a ). 3. The ripe ne ss doc trine se rve s “ to pre v e nt the c ourts, through a voida nc e of pre m ature a djudic ation, from e nta ngling them se lve s in a

bstra c t disa gre e m e nts.” Ass’n of Am. Med. C

olls. v . Unite d State

s , 217 F.3d 770, 779 (9th C i r. 2000) (quoting Abbott Labs. v. Gardne r , 387 U.S. 136, 148 (1967)). B e rnie r pre se nts a
5c onc re te c ha lle nge to Tra ve le rs’ de nia l of he r m a lic ious misc hie f and va nda lism
c la im , m a de in thec onte xt of a n a c tua l c ontrove rsy

be twe e n the pa

rtie s. The re fore , B e rnie r’ s ripe ne ss a

rgum e nt fa ils. AFFIRM E D. 5

5 B e rnie r’ s re q

ue s t for judic ia l notic e , file d with this c ourt on August 9, 2013, is DENIED. 6