Royal Kiefe v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co ( 2015 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 12 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ROYAL BRADFORD KEIFE, on behalf No. 13-15531
of himself and all others similarly situated,
D.C. No. 3:10-cv-00546-LRH-
Plaintiff - Appellant, VPC
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE MEMORANDUM*
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
BRENDA J. SIMON, on behalf of herself No. 13-15562
and all others similarly situated,
D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00916-LRH-
Plaintiff - Appellant, VPC
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
-2-
Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 9, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges.
Plaintiffs Royal Bradford Keife and Brenda J. Simon appeal the district
court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company in Plaintiffs’ consolidated putative class action. We have
jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM.
We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Fichman
v. Media Ctr., 512 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008). In the present case, Plaintiffs
bring a sole cause of action against MetLife for breach of contract. “Under Nevada
law, ‘the plaintiff in a breach of contract action [must] show (1) the existence of a
valid contract, (2) a breach by the defendant, and (3) damage as a result of the
breach.’” Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2013),
cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2819 (2014) (quoting Saini v. Int’l Game Tech., 434 F.
Supp. 2d 913, 919-20 (D. Nev. 2006)).
Even assuming that MetLife breached the terms of the Federal Employees’
Group Life Insurance Policy by paying the death benefits due by way of a retained
asset account instead of a lump-sum check, Plaintiffs have failed to present
-3-
sufficient facts establishing that they have suffered any damages as a result of that
alleged breach. Therefore, the district court properly entered summary judgment
against Plaintiffs on their claim for breach of contract. See Celotex Corp. v.
Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986).
AFFIRM.