Garamendi

Watson ex rel. Watson v. Garamendi

Good Law
262 F. App'x 805
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 3, 2008No. 06-55382California433 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

MEMORANDUM *

Kathleen Elizabeth Watson and four other plaintiff-appellants (collectively, the “Policyholders”) appeal the district court’s dismissal of their action for lack of standing. We review the dismissal de novo, Kennedy v. S. Cal. Edison Co., 268 F.3d 763 , 767 (9th Cir.2001), and we affirm the district court’s judgment.

Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recite them here.

Standing

The Policyholders lack standing to pursue their action because California Insurance Code section 1037(f) grants the California Insurance Commissioner exclusive power to prosecute and defend lawsuits on behalf of Executive Life Insurance Company (ELIC), and to dispose of ELIC’s estate assets. Cal. Ins.Code § 1037(d), (f).

The Policyholders seek to force the Commissioner to distribute certain estate assets pursuant to Article 10, rather than Article 17 of the Enhancement Agreement. The Commissioner’s distribution of estate assets, however, falls squarely within his exclusive powers under section 1037. Id.; see also State v. Altus Fin., 36 Cal.4th *806 1284 , 32 Cal.Rptr.3d 498 , 116 P.3d 1175, 1188 (2005) (Insurance Code section 1037(f) barred California’s Attorney…

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.