Colleen Stewart v. Property and Casualty Insurance Company of Hartford

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
COLLEEN STEWART,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
PROPERTY AND CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY OF
HARTFORD,
Defendant-Appellee.
No. 21-15753
D.C. No. 2:17-cv-02418-TLN-KJN
MEMORANDUM*
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).
FILED
APR 25 2023
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2 21-15753
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 of 2 --