Ellis v. Government Employee Ins. Co.

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ----oo0oo---- [11] 12 STANLEY ELLIS, No. 2:22-cv-01580 WBS JDP 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE 15 GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE INSURANCE PLEADINGS COMPANY, a Maryland corporation, [16] Defendant. [18] ----oo0oo---- [19] Plaintiff Stanley Ellis brought this action against [20] Government Employee Insurance Company (“GEICO”) asserting claims [21] for (1) breach of contract; (2) breach of the implied covenant of [22] good faith and fair dealing; and (3) unfair competition, under [23] Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200 et seq. (Docket No. 1, Ex. A [24] (“Complaint”).) The parties stipulated to dismiss the unfair [25] competition claim (Docket No. 8) and the court dismissed the [26] claim with prejudice (Docket No. 9). Defendant now moves for [27] partial judgment on the pleadings as to plaintiff’s first claim [28] 1 for breach of contract. (Mot. (Docket No. 7-1).) 2 The court considers defendant’s motion for judgment on 3 the pleadings as it would a motion to dismiss. See Sprint 4 Telephony PCS, L.P. v. Cnty. of San Diego, 311 F. Supp. 2d 898 , 5 902 (S.D. Cal. 2004) (“A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the 6 pleadings and a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss are virtually 7 interchangeable.”). Because no evidence is currently before the 8 court, the court declines to consider granting judgment at this 9 stage and will instead considers whether the challenged claim 10 merits dismissal. See Sprint, 311 F. Supp. 2d at 903 . 11 A claim for breach of contract requires proof of four 12 elements: “(1) existence of the contract; (2) plaintiff’s 13 performance or excuse for nonperformance; (3) defendant’s breach; 14 and (4) damages to plaintiff as a result of the breach.” CDF 15 Firefighters v. Maldonado, 158 Cal. App. 4th 1226, 1239 (2008). 16 Plaintiff’s complaint in this case does not 17 sufficiently allege facts to show that he suffered any damages 18 resulting from the alleged breach.1 See id., 158 Cal. App. 4th 19 at 1239 (explaining that damages resulting from the breach is one 20 of four required elements for a cause of action for breach of 21 contract); see also Behnke v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 196 Cal. 22 App. 4th 1443, 1468 (2011) (“Damages are an essential element of 23 a breach of contract claim.”) (citation omitted). For example, 24 plaintiff does not allege that he “suffered any direct damages 25 flowing from” defendant’s alleged unreasonable delay in paying [26] 27 1 It is undisputed that defendant ultimately paid plaintiff the full value under the policy which is the subject of 28 the action. nen ee enn meen ee nnn nn nn nnn on nn I ON OD OE 1 | plaintiff his benefits due under the contract. See Becerra v. 2 Allstate Northbrook Indem. Co., No. 22-cv-00202 BAS MSB, 2022 WL 3 2392456, at *6 (S.D. Cal. July 1, 2022) (explaining that a 4 | plaintiff who has been paid all that is owed under a contract may 5 still pursue a breach of contract claim on the theory of 6 | unreasonable delay) (citation omitted). 7 Nor does plaintiff make any allegations that he is owed 8 interest.* See Mendoza v. OM Fin. Life Ins. Co., No. C 09-01211 9] JW, 2009 WL 10697369 , at *3 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 19, 2009) (permitting 10 a breach of contract claim where “plaintiff allege[d] other 11] damages, such as interest under California Civil Code section 12 3302, incidental, and out-of-pocket damages”). Accordingly, 13 | plaintiff’s breach of contract claim must be dismissed. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that defendant’s Motion for 15 Partial Judgment on the Pleadings (Docket No. 7-1), construed as 16 a motion to dismiss, be, and the same hereby is, GRANTED, and 17 | plaintiff’s claim for breach of contract is hereby DISMISSED. 18 Plaintiff has twenty days from the date of this Order to file an 19 amended complaint, if he can do so consistent with this Order. 20 | Dated: December 15, 2022 / Llu ak. 2 , 21 WILLIAM B. SHUBB UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE [25] 26 PO 2 The court expresses no view as to whether plaintiff 27 could base his claim for breach of contract on owed interest (See Pilimai v. Farmers Ins. Exchange Co., 39 Cal. 4th 133 , 146 28 (2006)) if he had made such allegation.