ROYAL KIEFE V. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO, No. 13-15531 (9th Cir. 2015)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED JUN 12 2015 NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROYAL BRADFORD KEIFE, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-15531 D.C. No. VPC 3:10-cv-00546-LRH- v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, MEMORANDUM* Defendant - Appellee. BRENDA J. SIMON, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, Plaintiff - Appellant, No. 13-15562 D.C. No. 3:11-cv-00916-LRHVPC v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. -2Larry R. Hicks, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted June 9, 2015 San Francisco, California Before: SILVERMAN, GOULD, and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges. Plaintiffs Royal Bradford Keife and Brenda J. Simon appeal the district court’s entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendant Metropolitan Life Insurance Company in Plaintiffs’ consolidated putative class action. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we AFFIRM. We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. Fichman v. Media Ctr., 512 F.3d 1157, 1159 (9th Cir. 2008). In the present case, Plaintiffs bring a sole cause of action against MetLife for breach of contract. “Under Nevada law, ‘the plaintiff in a breach of contract action [must] show (1) the existence of a valid contract, (2) a breach by the defendant, and (3) damage as a result of the breach.’” Rivera v. Peri & Sons Farms, Inc., 735 F.3d 892, 899 (9th Cir. 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 2819 (2014) (quoting Saini v. Int’l Game Tech., 434 F. Supp. 2d 913, 919-20 (D. Nev. 2006)). Even assuming that MetLife breached the terms of the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Policy by paying the death benefits due by way of a retained asset account instead of a lump-sum check, Plaintiffs have failed to present -3sufficient facts establishing that they have suffered any damages as a result of that alleged breach. Therefore, the district court properly entered summary judgment against Plaintiffs on their claim for breach of contract. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). AFFIRM.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
