Court Opinion

ID: 9389448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-25 17:01:57.666065+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:27.124049
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                           FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        APR 25 2023
                                                                      MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                       U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

COLLEEN STEWART,                                No.    21-15753

                Plaintiff-Appellant,            D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02418-TLN-KJN

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
HARTFORD,

                Defendant-Appellee.

                   Appeal from the United States District Court
                      for the Eastern District of California
                    Troy L. Nunley, District Judge, Presiding

                            Submitted April 17, 2023**

Before:      CLIFTON, R. NELSON, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.

      Colleen Stewart appeals from the district court’s summary judgment in her

diversity action arising out of Stewart’s homeowners’ insurance claim. We have

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo. Vasquez v. County of

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
      **
             The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
Los Angeles, 349 F.3d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 2003). We affirm.

      The district court properly granted summary judgment because Stewart

failed to raise a genuine dispute of material fact as to whether defendant’s

investigation of her insurance claim and offer of benefits was neither fair nor

reasonable. See Oasis W. Realty, LLC v. Goldman, 250 P.3d 1115, 1121 (Cal.

2011) (elements of a breach of contract claim); Kransco v. Am. Empire Surplus

Lines Ins. Co., 2 P.3d 1, 8 (Cal. 2000) (requirements for breach of the implied

covenant of good faith and fair dealing).

      We do not consider arguments and allegations raised for the first time on

appeal. See Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 n.2 (9th Cir. 2009).

      Stewart’s motions for an extension of time to file the reply brief (Docket

Entry Nos. 34, 38) are denied.

      AFFIRMED.

                                            2                                  21-15753