Kelly

MEMORANDUM **

Richard Howard Kelly appeals the district court’s dismissal of his complaint against Provident Life & Accident Insurance Company. We reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals are reviewed de novo. See Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir.2005). All material allegations in the complaint are assumed to be true. Id. The district court’s applica *639 tion of state substantive law in diversity-actions is reviewed de novo. Prieto v. Paul Revere Life Ins. Co., 354 F.3d 1005, 1010 (9th Cir.2004).

The district court erred in two ways in dismissing Kelly’s rescission claim as inadequate under California law. The first was in concluding that Kelly failed to state a claim for undue influence because his complaint did not include some or all of the seven factors from Odorizzi v. Bloomfield School Dist., 246 Cal.App.2d 123, 133 , 54 Cal.Rptr. 533 (Cal.App.1966). Odorizzi did not hold that undue influence can be found only if some of the seven factors are present. Rather, the California court suggested that most, but not necessarily all, situations constituting undue influence involve those factors. Id. at 133 , 54 Cal. Rptr. 533…