NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS DEC 30 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ELLEN LEE; CHUNG LEE, No. 24-6617 D.C. No. Plaintiffs - Appellees, 5:20-cv-01133-SPG-SHK v.

MEMORANDUM*

GREAT AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Sherilyn Peace Garnett, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted December 10, 2025 Pasadena, California

Before: M. SMITH, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges.

Defendant-Appellant Great American Life Insurance Company appeals from

the district court’s certification of a class of “[a]ll living owners of Defendant’s

individual life insurance policies issued in California that Defendant lapsed or

terminated for nonpayment of premium on or after January 1, 2013, without first

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. providing every notice, grace period, and offer of designation required by

Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72.” We assume the parties’

familiarity with the facts and do not restate them here. We have jurisdiction

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(e) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f).

In light of the parties’ agreement that this case should be remanded

following our decision in Small v. Allianz Life Insurance Co. of North America,

122 F.4th 1182 (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 2852 (2025), we reverse

and remand. In their briefing, Plaintiffs ask us to “remand with directions to

consider whether class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) is proper under” Small and

our decision in Siino v. Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company, 133 F.4th

936 (9th Cir. 2025). We decline to do so. Although Siino suggests narrow

declaratory relief is available in some circumstances, such as when a declaration

may be used defensively, 133 F.4th at 946–47, Plaintiffs in this case seek to

recover on a theory grounded in contract. Therefore, limiting the relief sought

without narrowing the putative class does not cure the Rule 23 defects identified in

Small. See Small, 122 F.4th at 1201–03; Farley v. Lincoln Benefit Life Co., 150

F.4th 1197, 1204–05 (9th Cir. 2025).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

2 24-6617