Foster

Foster v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Good Law
243 F. App'x 208
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMay 22, 2007No. 06-15050California825 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM **

Edward B. Foster (Foster) appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) in Foster’s diversity action for breach of contract and declaratory relief. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we reverse.

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment and must determine whether, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, there are any genuine issues of material fact and whether the district court correctly applied the relevant substantive law. Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods, Inc., 471 F.3d 1116, 1120 (9th Cir.2006).

The parties are familiar with the facts and prior proceedings. The district court granted summary judgment to MetLife based upon the doctrine of laches, finding that Foster’s unreasonable delay in asserting his contractual rights had resulted in substantial prejudice to MetLife. The district court also determined that Foster’s breach of contract claim failed as a matter of law.

A. Laches

“Laches is an equitable affirmative defense available for actions that do not *210 have a specific applicable statute of limitations.” Id. at 1125 . Foster’s…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.