FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
DEC 02 2019
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
BRENDA G. MARTIN, individually and No. 16-15690
on behalf of all others similarly situated;
JOSEPH R. GIORDANO, individually and D.C. No. 3:16-cv-00484-RS
on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM*
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a New York corporation,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Richard Seeborg, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 16, 2017
San Francisco, California
Before: IKUTA and HURWITZ, Circuit Judges, and MOLLOY,** District Judge.
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable Donald W. Molloy, United States District Judge for
the District of Montana, sitting by designation.
Brenda Martin appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint against
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) for failure to state a claim
pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We have
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291.
The district court granted MetLife’s motion to dismiss based on its rulings
that: (1) MetLife was exempt from the requirement that “interest shall not be
compounded . . . unless an agreement to that effect is clearly expressed in writing
and signed by the party to be charged therewith,” Cal. Civ. Code § 1916-2 (the
disclosure requirement); and, in the alternative, (2) MetLife complied with the
disclosure requirement. Because California law in this area was unsettled, we
certified two questions respecting these issues to the California Supreme Court, see
Wishnev v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co., 880 F.3d 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2018), which
subsequently answered the first of our two questions, see Wishnev v. Nw. Mut. Life
Ins. Co., No. S246541, 2019 WL 5996921 (Cal. Nov. 14, 2019).
Under the California Supreme Court’s ruling, lenders that are exempt from
restrictions on interest rates under Article XV, section 1 of the California
Constitution, see Cal. Const. art XV, § 1, are exempt from the disclosure
requirement in section 1916-2 of the California Civil Code, Wishnev, 2019 WL
5996921, at *11. On appeal, the parties assume that MetLife was an exempt lender
2
under section 1100.1 of the California Insurance Code at the relevant time. See id.
at *5, 11 n.17. Therefore, under the California Supreme Court’s ruling, and
assuming that MetLife was an exempt lender at the relevant time,1 MetLife is
exempt from the disclosure requirement and Martin’s Complaint fails to state a
claim.
AFFIRMED.
1
Because the parties “assumed that [MetLife] was an exempt lender at all
relevant times” and did not address the question “whether a lender’s designation as
exempt under article XV applies retroactively to a loan that may predate the
designation,” Wishnev, 2019 WL 5996921, at *11 n.17, we do not consider this
issue.
3