JANG v. SAGICOR LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (2021)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.2021-05-03No. No. 19-55475, No. 19-55533

Summary · law.co

Holding. The court affirmed the district court's evidentiary ruling and grant of summary judgment, and upheld the forfeiture of claims related to the magistrate judge's discovery and sanctions order.

Daniel Jang appealed a district court's evidentiary rulings and summary judgment in an insurance dispute, along with challenges to a magistrate judge's discovery and sanctions order. The appellate court upheld the district court's exclusion of three declarations because the declarants lacked personal knowledge of the events they described and failed to establish how they knew the facts asserted. Jang was served with the defendant's objections to these declarations but did not respond, despite bearing the burden to show admissibility. The court found that even if the exclusion were erroneous, the declarations would not have created a genuine factual dispute for trial.

On the substantive claims, the court determined no genuine issue of material fact existed regarding whether South Korean medical records belonged to the insured party, making summary judgment appropriate on breach of contract, declaratory relief, and breach of good faith claims. For the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, Jang failed to raise evidence of extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant's investigators; conclusory allegations in his own declarations could not create a material factual dispute. Additionally, Jang and his counsel forfeited their right to appeal the magistrate judge's discovery and sanctions order by failing to file timely objections to that nondispositive order with the district judge.

Summary generated by law.co from the public-domain opinion. The opinion text itself is public domain.

Key issues

Whether declarations lacking personal knowledge should be excluded under evidence rules
Whether summary judgment was proper given the record and legal standards for material fact disputes
Whether claims for breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress survived summary judgment
Whether appellants forfeited the right to appeal a magistrate judge's nondispositive order by failing to timely object

Procedural posture

Jang appealed from the district court's evidentiary ruling and grant of summary judgment, as well as from a magistrate judge's discovery and sanctions order.

Authorities cited

No cited authorities resolved to law.co cases yet.

Opinion · public domain

MEMORANDUM **

In these consolidated cases, Plaintiff Daniel Jang appeals from the district courts evidentiary ruling and granting of Defendants’ motions for summary judgment, and Plaintiff Daniel Jang and his counsel Kevin Jang appeal from the magistrate judges order denying discovery and imposing discovery sanctions against them. As the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded portions of three declarations submitted by Plaintiff, because the declarants lacked personal knowledge of the asserted statements. Fed. R. Evid. 602. The declarants did not witness the events, did not explain how they had personal knowledge of the events, did not ground their statements “in observations and experience,” United States v. Whittemore, 776 F.3d 1074, 1082 (9th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted), and it could not be reasonably inferred from the declarations “the nature of their participation in the matters to which they swore,” Barthelemy v. Air Lines Pilots Assn, 897 F.2d 999, 1018 (9th Cir. 1990) (per curiam). See also Lowry v. City of San Diego, 858 F.3d 1248, 1256 (9th Cir. 2017) (en banc).

Plaintiff also asserts that the district court erred in excluding portions of the declarations without affording him a chance to address Defendants’ objections. Plaintiff was served with the objections but did not file a response despite bearing the burden of proof to show the admissibility of the declarants’ statements. Pfingston v. Ronan Engg Co., 284 F.3d 999, 1004 (9th Cir. 2002). Moreover, Plaintiff invited any error by failing to respond to the objections and then claiming on appeal that the district court erred. In re Oracle Corp. Sec. Litig., 627 F.3d 376, 385–86 (9th Cir. 2010). Finally, even if the district court erred in excluding portions of the declarations, the declarations did not establish a genuine issue of triable fact. Villiarimo v. Aloha Island Air, Inc., 281 F.3d 1054, 1061 (9th Cir. 2002).

The Court reviews a grant of summary judgment de novo. Sandoval v. County of San Diego, 985 F.3d 657, 665 (9th Cir. 2021). Summary judgment is appropriate when there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). However, “the existence of ‘some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment.’ ” Momox-Caselis v. Donohue, 987 F.3d 835, 841 (9th Cir. 2021) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247–48, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986)). “Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party, there is no genuine issue for trial,” and summary judgment is appropriate. Ricci v. DeStefano, 557 U.S. 557, 586, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009) (emphasis in original) (citation omitted).

As to Plaintiffs claims for breach of contract, declaratory relief, and breach of an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, de novo review of the record demonstrates that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the South Korean medical records belonged to the insured. Although the parties dispute this fact, the evidence produced by Plaintiff—considered as a part of the record as a whole and viewed in the light most favorable to Plaintiff—could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for Plaintiff. Accordingly, there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial.

As to Plaintiffs claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress, de novo review of the record shows that Plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue with regard to the necessary “extreme and outrageous” element of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Hughes v. Pair, 46 Cal.4th 1035, 95 Cal.Rptr.3d 636, 209 P.3d 963, 976 (2009) (citation omitted). The record is devoid of any extreme and outrageous conduct by Defendants’ investigators aside from Plaintiff and Plaintiffs counsels conclusory declarations, and “[w]hen the nonmoving party relies only on its own affidavits to oppose summary judgment, it cannot rely on conclusory allegations unsupported by factual data to create an issue of material fact.” Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (per curiam) (citing United States v. 1 Parcel of Real Property, 904 F.2d 487, 492 n.3 (9th Cir. 1990)). Accordingly, there was no genuine issue of material fact for trial.

Appellants have forfeited their claims related to the magistrate judges discovery and sanctions order. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a) allows a party 14 days to object to a magistrate judges non-dispositive order. Appellants did not file objections to the magistrate judges discovery and sanctions order with the district judge. A party “who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judges nondispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate review of that order.” Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174 (9th Cir. 1996); accord Glenbrook Homeowners Assn v. Tahoe Regl Planning Agency, 425 F.3d 611, 619–20 (9th Cir. 2005).

AFFIRMED.