Boktor

MEMORANDUM *

Nema Boktor appeals the district court’s order granting Prudential Property and Casualty Company’s motion for summary judgment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We affirm.

It is undisputed that Boktor’s insurance policies did not contain earthquake coverage. Therefore, Boktor’s breach of contract claim fails under California law. See R & B Auto Center, Inc. v. Farmers Group, Inc., 140 Cal.App.4th 327, 337 , 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 426 (2006). Estoppel is not available to remedy this fact. Id. at 352 , 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 426 . Further, where there is no potential for coverage under a contract, there can be no claim for breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing implied within that contract. See id. at 353 , 44 Cal.Rptr.3d 426 .

In addition, Boktor did not bring a cause of action for reformation, nor did section 10083 of the California Insurance Code change her policy or otherwise provide any relief as to such a claim. Finally, her challenge to the constitutionality of summary judgment fails. See Fidelity & Deposit Co. of Md. v. United States, 187 U.S. 315, 319-21 , 23 S.Ct. 120 , 47 L.Ed. 194 (1902); Page v. Work, 290 F.2d 323, 334 (9th Cir. 1961) (per…