FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 17 2015
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY; No. 13-17030
ALLSTATE PROPERTY & CASUALTY
INSURANCE COMPANY; ALLSTATE D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00369-JCM-
INDEMNITY CO., GWF
Plaintiffs - Appellees,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
OBTEEN N. NASSIRI, D.C.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
James C. Mahan, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted December 9, 2015
San Francisco, California
Before: O’SCANNLAIN, SILVERMAN, and BEA, Circuit Judges.
Obteen Nassiri appeals the jury’s award of compensatory damages on
Allstate’s claims of fraud and racketeering under federal and state law. We affirm.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
First, there was no error in admitting the testimony of Allstate’s damages
witness, Aaron Patterson. Patterson was qualified to testify on the subject of how
Allstate calculated settlement values in claims affected by fraud, based upon the
knowledge and experience he gained working such cases at Allstate. The district
court did not abuse its discretion in admitting such testimony without first holding
a Daubert hearing. See Hangarter v. Provident Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998,
1018 (9th Cir. 2004).
Second, Allstate’s calculation of damages was not impermissibly
speculative. The testimony of Patterson and Dr. Craig Little explained in detail
how Allstate reviewed the relevant files to identify improper medical charges and
the method through which it calculated how such inflated charges affected the final
settlement amounts that Allstate paid. Such evidence provided a sufficient
foundation upon which the jury could reasonably determine the extent to which
Nassiri’s practices damaged Allstate. See Harper v. City of Los Angeles, 533 F.3d
1010, 1028 (9th Cir. 2008) (“We . . . afford substantial deference to a jury’s
finding of the appropriate amount of damages. Unless the amount is grossly
excessive or monstrous, clearly not supported by the evidence, or based only on
speculation or guesswork, we uphold the jury’s award.” (internal quotation marks
and citation omitted)); see also Pac. Shores Props., LLC v. City of Newport Beach,
2
730 F.3d 1142, 1170–71 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Where the tort itself is of such a nature
as to preclude the ascertainment of the amount of damages with certainty . . . it will
be enough if the evidence show the extent of the damages as a matter of just and
reasonable inference, although the result be only approximate.” (internal quotation
marks omitted)).
Finally, Nassiri may not challenge the denial of his motion for summary
judgment on the issue of the statute of limitations now that such issue has been
resolved by the jury at trial. See Ortiz v. Jordan, 562 U.S. 180, 183–84, 191–92
(2011).
AFFIRMED.
3