Universal Bank v. Northland Insurance

MEMORANDUM

Universal Bank appeals the district court’s judgment dismissing Universal’s claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fan-dealing in its action to recover under a fiduciary bond issued by Northland Insurance Company. 2 The district court had jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

We review de novo dismissals pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). See Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir.1994). We construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and “accept all well-pleaded factual allegations as true.” Shwarz v. United States, 234 F.3d 428, 435 (9th Cir.2000) (citations omitted). As the operative facts occurred in California, we look to California law. See California Union Ins. Co. v. American Diversified Sav. Bank, 948 F.2d 556, 558 (9th Cir.1991).

Because Universal’s claims did not fall within the bond’s coverage provisions for forgery or defective signatures in a real estate transaction, the district court properly dismissed the cause of action al *786 leging breach of contract. With respect to the forgery claim, the district…