22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T454,MEMORANDUM The San Diego Unified Port District appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment in favor of ACE American Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing de novo, see Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm. The subject insurance policy includes a very broad exclusion that unambiguously defeats the Port’s claim for coverage. We find no support for the Port’s argument that the exclusion does not apply becaus'e the “gravamen” of the prior proceedings did not include consideration of the Port’s conduct. There were no questions of fact that precluded entry of summary judgment, and the district court did not err by concluding, as a matter of law, that the claims against the Port fall within the policy’s exclusion. AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. . The parties are familiar with the facts so they are not repeated here,24:T481,

MEMORANDUM

The San Diego Unified Port District appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment in favor of ACE American Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . Reviewing de novo, see Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

The subject insurance policy includes a very broad exclusion that unambiguously defeats the Port’s claim for coverage. We find no support for the Port’s argument that the exclusion does not apply becaus'e the “gravamen” of the prior proceedings did not include consideration of the Port’s conduct. There were no questions of fact that precluded entry of summary judgment, and the district court did not err by concluding, as a matter of law, that the claims against the Port fall within the policy’s exclusion.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. . The parties are familiar with the facts so they are not repeated here,