ROCKY DIETZ V. GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE CO., No. 17-35011 (9th Cir. 2018)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 11 2018 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT ROCKY DIETZ, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 17-35011 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 6:16-cv-00074-CCL v. MEMORANDUM* GEICO GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Montana Charles C. Lovell, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 8, 2018** Seattle Washington Before: GOULD, IKUTA, Circuit Judges, and FREUDENTHAL,*** Chief District Judge * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). *** The Honorable Nancy D. Freudenthal, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Wyoming, sitting by designation. 1 Rocky Dietz appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his claims for statutory and common law third-party insurance bad faith against Geico General Insurance Company (Geico). We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. In August of 2009, Geico’s insured, Hillary Bouldin, injured Dietz in a car accident. Ultimately, the matter proceeded to trial, where the jury awarded Dietz $15,000.00 in damages. On April 18, 2013, the Clerk of Court entered judgment in Dietz’s favor for this amount. Dietz appealed the jury verdict to the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the jury verdict. Dietz then appealed to the United States Supreme Court, who affirmed the jury verdict on June 9, 2016. On July 5, 2016, Dietz filed a complaint against Geico asserting a third-party bad faith claim under Montana’s Unfair Trade Practices Act (MUTPA) and a common law claim for third-party bad faith. The district court granted Geico’s motion to dismiss finding Dietz’s claims were time-barred because they accrued on April 18, 2013, when the district court entered judgment on the jury verdict in the underlying tort case. We review de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Colony Cove Props., LLC v. City of Carson, 640 F.3d 948, 955 (9th Cir. 2011). The MUTPA provides that a third-party claimant must bring an action “within 1 year from the date of the settlement of or the entry of judgment on the underlying claim.” Mont. Code Ann. § 33-18-242(7)(b). We reject Dietz’s 2 argument that “entry of judgment” refers to anything other than the entry of judgment by the Clerk of Court or the district court at the conclusion of the trial court proceedings. See Mont. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(b)(1)(A). The district court properly took judicial notice of the records in the underlying case, Dietz v. Bouldin, 11-CV-00036-RWA (D. Mont. 2013), to find the “entry of judgment” triggering the statute of limitations occurred on April 18, 2013. See United States v. Wilson, 631 F.2d 118, 119 (9th Cir. 1980) (“In particular, a court may take judicial notice of its own records in other cases, as well as the records of an inferior court in other cases.”). The MUTPA required Dietz to file his thirdparty statutory bad faith claim within one year of the April 18, 2013 entry of judgment in the underlying case. The district court properly found this claim was time-barred. Dietz also challenges the district court’s dismissal of his common law claim for third-party bad faith. “The statute of limitations for ‘bad faith’ or ‘breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing’ is the three-year statute applicable to torts, § 27–2–204(1), MCA.” Brewington v. Emp’rs Fire Ins. Co., 992 P.2d 237, 249 (Mont. 1999) (citation omitted). All the allegations in Dietz’s complaint for common law bad faith accrued on or before April 18, 2013. The district court properly found this claim was time-barred. AFFIRMED. 3
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.
