Davis v. Combined Insurance
Filing
44
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS. Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on 03/07/2018. (mmclc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/7/2018)
1
2
3
4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
KEITH DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
v.
COMBINED INSURANCE,
Case No. 17-cv-02655-MMC
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 39
Defendant.
12
13
Before the Court is defendant Combined Insurance’s (“Combined”) Motion to
14
Dismiss, filed February 7, 2018. Plaintiff Keith Davis (“Davis”) has filed opposition, to
15
which Combined has replied. The Court, having read and considered the papers filed in
16
support of an in opposition to the motion, deems the matter appropriate for determination
17
on the parties’ respective written submissions, hereby VACATES the hearing scheduled
18
for March 16, 2018, and rules as follows.
19
The initial complaint in the above-titled action was filed on May 8, 2017, alleging a
20
single cause of action for breach of contract, specifically, Combined’s denial of Davis’s
21
claim for death benefits under an insurance policy written by Combined. On August 2,
22
2017, Davis filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), again alleging a single cause of
23
action for the same asserted breach. By order filed January 10, 2018, the Court found
24
the “insurance policy at issue does not afford death benefits,” dismissed Davis’s cause of
25
action for breach of contract, and afforded Davis leave to plead, if he could do so, a claim
26
based on representations made by Combined’s agent. (See Order, filed January 10,
27
2018, at 1:20-26.)
28
On January 26, 2018, Davis filed a Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), in which
1
he asserts the following three causes of action: (1) “Breach of Contract”; (2)
2
“Misrepresentation”; and (3) “Fraud”. By the instant motion, Combined moves to dismiss
3
the SAC in its entirety.
4
First, as Combined points out, Davis was not afforded leave to amend to reassert
5
his cause of action for breach of contract. (See id. at 1:23 (dismissing breach of contract
6
claim without leave to amend).)
7
Accordingly, to the extent Combined seeks dismissal of Davis’s claim for breach of
8
contract, the motion is hereby GRANTED and said cause of action is hereby
9
DISMISSED.
10
Combined next argues that each of the two remaining causes of action is barred
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
by the applicable statute of limitations. See Butcher v. Truck Ins. Exch., 77 Cal. App. 4th
12
1442, 1470 (Cal. Ct. App. 2000) (holding two-year statute of limitations applies to
13
negligent misrepresentation claims); Ivanoff v. Bank of Am., N.A., 9 Cal. App. 5th 719,
14
734 (Cal. Ct. App. 2017) (holding fraud claims “governed by” three-year statute of
15
limitations). As set forth below, the Court agrees.
16
Davis’s misrepresentation and fraud claims are based on his allegation that, at the
17
time he purchased the policy here at issue, Combined’s agent falsely told him the policy
18
provided death benefits. Combined denied Davis’s claim for death benefits on April 3,
19
2014 (see SAC at 1:26-27), on the express ground that the policy “does not provide any
20
death benefits” (see FAC Ex. B); see also Rodriguez v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., LLC,
21
801 F.3d 1045, 1054 (9th Cir. 2015) (holding allegations made in amended complaint
22
must be “consistent with the [prior] pleading”) (internal quotation and citation omitted);
23
Sharp v. Fresno Cty. Jail, No. 15-CV-0001-DLB, 2015 WL 6689915, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct.
24
28, 2015) (holding plaintiff “cannot omit prior factual allegations in an attempt to state a
25
claim” in amended pleading). Such denial was sufficient to put Davis on inquiry notice as
26
to the falsity of the statements he alleges were made by Combined’s agent regarding
27
coverage, and, consequently, Davis’s misrepresentation and fraud claims accrued more
28
than three years before the instant action was filed. See Kline v. Turner, 87 Cal. App. 4th
2
1
1369, 1374 (Cal. Ct. App. 2001) (holding cause of action accrues and statute of
2
limitations begins to run on date plaintiff has information that would put reasonable
3
person on “inquiry” notice). Thus, assuming, arguendo, Davis’s misrepresentation and
4
fraud claims relate back to the date on which Davis filed his initial complaint, those claims
5
are, in each instance, time-barred.
6
Accordingly, to the extent Combined seeks dismissal of Davis’s claims for
7
misrepresentation and fraud, the motion is hereby GRANTED and said causes of action
8
are hereby DISMISSED.
9
Lastly, Davis’s request for leave to amend to add the California Department of
Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) as a defendant is unavailing. Davis seeks such
11
United States District Court
Northern District of California
10
leave on the ground that “CDCR allowed [Combined] to set up a sales center at San
12
Quentin State Prison,” thereby “tacitly endors[ing]” Combined’s allegedly fraudulent sale,
13
which was made at that facility. (See Opp. at 1:21-23.) For the reasons stated above
14
with respect to Davis’s misrepresentation and fraud claims against Combined, any such
15
claim against CDCR likewise would be time-barred.
16
Accordingly, Davis’s request for further leave to amend is hereby DENIED.
17
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
20
Dated: March 7, 2018
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?