William Necessary v. State Farm Mutual Automobile I

MEMORANDUM

William Necessary and his wife Suzy (collectively “Necessary,” treated for convenience as a singular noun ) appeal the district court’s order granting summary judgment against them and in favor of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company (“State Farm”). We affirm the grant of summary judgment in part and reverse in part, and we remand the case to the district court for proceedings consistent with this memorandum disposition.

Background

In this appeal Necessary asserts that the district court erred (1) by treating State Farm’s motion for judgment on the pleadings pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. (“Rule”) 12(c) as a Rule 56 motion for summary judgment and (2) by granting summary judgment against him as to his claims grounded in common law fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress and as to the issue of punitive damages. State Farm contests both those assertions.

We review de novo a district court’s grant of summary judgment (Olsen v. Idaho State Bd. of Med., 363 F.3d 916 , 922 (9th Cir.2004)). Summary judgment is appropriate when, with the evidence viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, there are no genuine issues of material fact, so…