MEMORANDUM

1. The district court did not err in granting the defendants’ motion to compel appraisal. The policy requires appraisal if the insurer and insured “fail to agree on the actual cash value, amount of loss or damage or the cost of repair or replacement.” At bottom, Schmukler’s objection to the vendor discount is a dispute about the “reasonable cost of repair or replacement.” Schmukler contends that Farmers’ repair estimate isn’t reasonable because of its vendor discount; Farmers contends that it is. The policy is clear that these kinds of disagreements are to be settled by appraisal. See Cmty. Assisting Recovery, Inc. v. Aegis Sec. Ins. Co., 92 Cal.App.4th 886 , 112 Cal.Rptr.2d 304, 309 (2001).

We agree with the district court that the dispute in this ease is distinguishable from challenges to an insurer’s depreciation methodology, which may proceed in court without an appraisal. See, e.g., Alexander v. Farmers Ins. Co., 219 Cal.App.4th 1183 , 162 Cal.Rptr.3d 455, 465-66 (2013); Doan v. State Farm Gen. Ins. Co., 195 Cal. App.4th 1082 , 125 Cal.Rptr.3d 793, 801-03 (2011); Kirkwood v. Cal. State Auto. Ass’n Inter-Ins. Bur., 193 Cal.App.4th 49 , 122 Cal.Rptr.3d 480, 488-89 (2011). Unlike the depreciation cases, Schmukler’s grievance does not center on the interpretation of the policy or of a statute. Both the policy and California law are silent as to vendor discounts, leaving nothing for a court to decide other than the reasonable cost of repairing Schmukler’s property. That is precisely the kind of dispute that the policy commits to appraisal.

2. The district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to entertain a de-clarator judgment action. A declaratory judgment in this case would only determine the reasonable replacement cost of Schmukler’s property, and would not resolve any issue of legal uncertainty. See McGraw-Edison Co. v. Preformed Line Prods. Co., 362 F.2d 339, 342 (9th Cir. 1966).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.