Wendy Collier v. Reliastar Life Insurance

MEMORANDUM

Wendy Collier appeals from the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Re-liastar on her claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and bad faith. On cross-appeal, Reliastar contends that Collier’s claim for breach of contract was barred by collateral estoppel. Because the parties are familiar with the facts of the case, we do not recite them here.

I. Collateral Estoppel

On de novo review, Costanich v. Dep’t of Soc. & Health Servs., 627 F.3d 1101 , 1107 (9th Cir.2010), we conclude that Collier’s claims were barred by collateral estoppel because the hearing before the Marin County Employees’ Retirement Association (MCERA) would be accorded “preclu-sive effect” under California law, Univ. Of Tenn. v. Elliott, 478 U.S. 788, 799 , 106 S.Ct. 3220 , 92 L.Ed.2d 635 (1986).

California accords an administrative proceeding preclusive effect if: (1) the administrative hearing provided the party against whom it is being used a full and fair opportunity to litigate its case; (2) the traditional requirements of collateral es-toppel are met; and (3) according preclu-sive effect comports with the public policy goals of the doctrine of collateral estoppel. People…