Bally v. State Farm Life Insurance Company

5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ELIZABETH A. BALLY, Case No. 18-cv-04954-CRB 9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR 10 v. LEAVE TO FILE A CROSS- MOTION FOR SUMMARY 11 STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE JUDGMENT ON COUNT TWO COMPANY, Defendant.

On April 28, 2021, the Court issued its Order on Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment (“Order”) (dkt. 222). In relevant part, the Order denied State Farm summary judgment with respect to the claim for breach of contract based on the monthly expense provision (“Count II”). Order at 20. Plaintiff did not move for summary judgment on Count II. The Court subsequently granted Plaintiff leave to move for summary judgment on Count II, and Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Count II on June 30, 2021.

Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (dkt. 237). On July 27, 2021, State Farm filed a motion for leave to file a cross-motion for summary judgment on Count II. Motion for Leave (“Motion”) (dkt. 239). Because State Farm has not shown good cause for leave to file a second summary judgment motion on Count II, the Motion is DENIED.

25 I. BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiff’s Count II claim centers on the monthly expense charge provision, which states that “[t]he monthly expense charge is $5.00.” Order at 15–16. Plaintiff alleges that fixed monthly expenses under the policy would not exceed $5.00. Id. at 16. Plaintiff contends that State Farm breached this promise by charging policyholders additional, unidentified monthly expenses in connection with the cost of insurance rate. Id. at 15.

4 In denying State Farm summary judgment on Count II, the Court found that based on the plain language of the policy, a policyholder could reasonably understand “monthly expense charge” to cover all monthly expenses. Id. at 16–17. The Court further found that the context of the policy supported this interpretation because the policy includes separate and additional charges that a reasonable policyholder could conclude enabled State Farm not only to recover the cost of offering the policy but to make a profit from the policy as well. Id. at 17–18.

11 In response, State Farm argued that the monthly expense charge identified certain expenses but did not preclude the collection of additional expenses elsewhere. Id. at 18.

13 Although the Court noted that Plaintiff’s interpretation was “possibly the only reasonable reading,” it assumed for the sake of argument that State Farm’s interpretation was also reasonable and it considered extrinsic evidence. Id. 16 The extrinsic evidence did not help State Farm. Rather, the extrinsic evidence suggested that many consumers were not informed about the nature of the expenses charged under the policy. Id. at 19. The Court found that the extrinsic evidence was lacking in other ways as well. For example, it was limited to certain regions although the policy is national, and it went to the subjective understanding of certain consumers rather than the objective understanding of a reasonable policyholder. Id. at 19–20. Based on the extrinsic evidence, the Court found “the ‘monthly expense charge’ is at best ambiguous” and denied State Farm’s motion for summary judgment on Count II. Id. at 20.

24 State Farm now seeks leave to file a second motion for summary judgment on Count II.

26 II. LEGAL STANDARD 27 “[D]istrict courts have discretion to entertain successive motions for summary whether good cause exists to allow successive motions for summary judgment, courts consider factors such as the “availability of new evidence or an expanded factual record,” “an intervening change in controlling law,” or “the need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.” Peasley v. Spearman, No. 15-CV-01769-LHK, 2017 WL 5451709, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2017) (citations and internal quotations omitted).

6 III. ANALYSIS 7 State Farm fails to establish good cause for leave to file a second motion for summary judgment on Count II. It does not identify any newly available evidence, changes in law, clear errors, or similar developments that would warrant a renewed motion on Count II. While State Farm promises that it will offer new “fact evidence” regarding Count II, it provides no detail on the nature of the evidence or why such evidence could not have been presented in its previous motion for summary judgment on Count II. See Motion at 2. State Farm repeatedly points out that Plaintiff has submitted a supplemental expert report, but it does not explain how that report has any bearing on how a reasonable policyholder would interpret the monthly expense charge.1 See id. at 2–3. Finally, while State Farm states that it will present “significant analysis of the $5.00 monthly expense charge,” it does not elaborate on the analysis in any detail or explain why the analysis could not have been offered in its earlier briefing. Id. 19 The Court expects State Farm will make its arguments regarding Count II in its opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement. But State Farm fails to establish that the evidence and arguments could not have been previously raised, and State Farm is not entitled to a second bite at the apple.

23 IV. CONCLUSION 24 The Court DENIES State Farm’s motion for leave to file a cross-motion for summary judgment on Count II. The Court also DENIES State Farm’s motion for leave to To the extent that State Farm believes Plaintiff’s supplemental expert report is subject to || file a reply in response to Plaintiff's opposition to State Farm’s motion for leave.

3 IT IS SO ORDERED. : kK 4 Dated: August 10, 2021 CHARLES R. BREYER 5 United States District Judge qa 12

©

Z 18