22:I[98912,["/_next/static/chunks/0asocxi83kb~5.js","/_next/static/chunks/0n4z.7yu76je-.js","/_next/static/chunks/0eyt_ou8dj52g.js","/_next/static/chunks/01bcia3bjqt9z.js","/_next/static/chunks/15egrlmmf_yst.js"],"CaseDetailGate"] 23:T4fd,MEMORANDUM Strategix, Ltd. and its parent company, ePassage, Inc. (collectively, “Strategix”), appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing Strategix’s suit against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (“St.Paul”), Strategix’s liability insurer. Strategix claims that St. Paul wrongfully refused to defend Strategix against a third-party lawsuit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm. The third-party claims clearly fell within the breach of contract exclusion in the insurance policy because they “result[ed] from” Strategix’s alleged breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Consulting Agreement. The alleged breach had more than “a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship” to the claims. Medill v. Westport Ins. Corp., 143 Cal.App.4th 819 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 570, 578-79 (2006). Indeed, Strategix’s “potential liability would not exist without the contracts.” Id. at 579; see also Cont’l Cas. Co. v. City of Richmond, 763 F.2d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir.1985) (“The claim need bear only an incidental relationship to the injury to come within the exclusionary clause.... ”). AFFIRMED. This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.24:T52a,

MEMORANDUM

Strategix, Ltd. and its parent company, ePassage, Inc. (collectively, “Strategix”), appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing Strategix’s suit against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (“St.Paul”), Strategix’s liability insurer. Strategix claims that St. Paul wrongfully refused to defend Strategix against a third-party lawsuit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and we affirm.

The third-party claims clearly fell within the breach of contract exclusion in the insurance policy because they “result[ed] from” Strategix’s alleged breach of the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Consulting Agreement. The alleged breach had more than “a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship” to the claims. Medill v. Westport Ins. Corp., 143 Cal.App.4th 819 , 49 Cal.Rptr.3d 570, 578-79 (2006). Indeed, Strategix’s “potential liability would not exist without the contracts.” Id. at 579; see also Cont’l Cas. Co. v. City of Richmond, 763 F.2d 1076, 1081 (9th Cir.1985) (“The claim need bear only an incidental relationship to the injury to come within the exclusionary clause.... ”).

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9 th Cir. R. 36-3.