Opinion ID: 688285
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: jurisdiction

Text: 15 The district court's jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1332. Although neither party raises the issue, we must determine sua sponte whether we have jurisdiction over the appeal. Reynaga v. Cammisa, 971 F.2d 414, 417 (9th Cir. 1992). 16 Our jurisdiction cannot be based on 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 because a partial summary judgment is not a final appealable order. However, we do have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1), which allows review of an order granting, continuing, modifying, refusing or dissolving injunctions, or refusing to dissolve or modify injunctions. An order finding a duty to defend and requiring the insurer to pay defense costs is an appealable injunction for the purposes of Section 1292(a)(1). Gon v. First State Ins. Co., 871 F.2d 863, 865-66 (9th Cir. 1989). 17 The judgment entered March 3, 1993 ordered Charter Oak to pay reasonable defense costs forthwith. It was modified by an order entered April 19, 1993, but only to provide that in case of dispute as to the amount, the dispute should be arbitrated. It did not relieve Charter Oak of the obligation to pay forthwith, and Charter Oak was required to post a supersedeas bond to avoid contempt for failure to pay. We conclude that Charter Oak was subject to an injunction. STANDARDS OF REVIEW 18 A district court's grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo. Jones v. Union Pac. R.R., 968 F.2d 937, 940 (9th Cir. 1992). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), the appellate court should affirm the district court's grant of summary judgment if, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are no issues of material fact and summary judgment is appropriate as a matter of law. Tzung v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 873 F.2d 1338, 1339-40 (9th Cir. 1989).