From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vinkov

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 3, 2022
No. 21-55857 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2022)

Opinion

21-55857

10-03-2022

BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. SERGEI VINKOV, an individual, Defendant-Appellant.


NOT FOR PUBLICATION

Submitted September 30, 2022 San Francisco, California

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California D.C. No. 5:19-cv-01821-SB-SP Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Before: WALLACE, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM

Sergei Vinkov appeals from the district court's summary judgment and motions to dismiss order in favor of Brotherhood Mutual Insurance Company (BMIC) in BMIC's action alleging it does not have a duty to defend or indemnify Vinkov in a separate lawsuit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review summary judgment de novo and a district court order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b)(2) for abuse of discretion. Edgerly v. City &Cnty. of San Francisco, 599 F.3d 946, 960 (9th Cir. 2010); Fjelstad v. Am. Honda Motor Co., 762 F.2d 1334, 1337 (9th Cir.1985). We affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment in favor of BMIC because Vinkov failed to establish a triable issue as to whether he is covered by BMIC's insurance policy. Vinkov failed to genuinely dispute any material fact that his social media posts were not "leadership activity undertaken on the church's behalf," as required to be a covered person under BMIC's policy. See Hansen v. United States, 7 F.3d 137, 138 (9th Cir. 1993) (holding that a conclusory affidavit lacking detailed facts and any supporting evidence is insufficient to create a genuine issue of material fact).

The district court properly dismissed Vinkov's counterclaims for insurance bad faith and prompt payment. The district court did not abuse its discretion because when a party fails to obey an order to provide discovery, a trial court may, in its discretion, "make such orders in regard to the failure as are just." David v. Hooker, Ltd., 560 F.2d 412, 418-19 (9th Cir. 1977). The district did not abuse its discretion in concluding that by disregarding multiple court orders and providing only evasive responses, Vinkov sufficiently failed to abide by discovery orders and that such obstructive behavior warranted dismissal of his counterclaims. Conn. Gen. Life Ins. Co. v. New Images of Beverly Hills, 482 F.3d 1091, 1096 (9th Cir. 2007).

The district court properly exercised subject matter jurisdiction. The action is between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

All pending motions are denied.

AFFIRMED.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).


Summaries of

Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vinkov

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 3, 2022
No. 21-55857 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2022)
Case details for

Bhd. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Vinkov

Case Details

Full title:BROTHERHOOD MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, an Indiana corporation…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 3, 2022

Citations

No. 21-55857 (9th Cir. Oct. 3, 2022)