NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 2 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
JACOB BENSON, an individual; JOSEPH No. 19-16686
BENSON; DEBORAH BENSON, husband
and wife; K. B., a minor, by and through D.C. No. 2:18-cv-00006-DWL
Jacob Benson, guardian ad litem,
Plaintiffs-Appellants, MEMORANDUM*
v.
CASA DE CAPRI ENTERPRISES, LLC, an
Arizona limited liability company;
UNKNOWN PARTIES, named as John Does
1-20; ABC Corporations I-X; XYZ
Partnerships I-X,
Defendants-Appellees,
CONTINUING CARE RISK RETENTION
GROUP, INC., Garnishee,
Real-party-in-interest-
Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Arizona
Dominic Lanza, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 5, 2020
Submission Withdrawn November 23, 2020
Resubmitted January 31, 2022
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
Pasadena, California
Before: KLEINFELD, HURWITZ, and BRESS, Circuit Judges.
Appellants (“the Bensons”), appeal a district court order granting a motion by
Continuing Care Risk Retention Group (“CCRRG”) to compel arbitration, and
dismissing the action without prejudice. We have jurisdiction under 9 U.S.C. § 16
and 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs.,
Inc., 498 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2007), we reverse.
After the Bensons obtained a $1.5 million judgment against Casa de Capri
Enterprises, CCRRG’s insured, the Bensons sought a writ of garnishment against
CCRRG. The district court determined that because the Bensons were seeking to
avail themselves of the benefits of Casa de Capri’s insurance policy with CCRRG,
they were also bound by the policy’s arbitration clause under Arizona’s doctrine of
direct benefits estoppel.
After oral argument, we certified two unresolved questions of Arizona law to
the Arizona Supreme Court:
1) In a garnishment action by a judgment creditor against the judgment
debtor’s insurer claiming that coverage is owed under an insurance
policy, where the judgment creditor is not proceeding on an
assignment of rights, can the insurer invoke the doctrine of direct
benefits estoppel to bind the judgment creditor to the terms of the
insurance contract?
2) If yes, does direct benefits estoppel also bind the judgment creditor
to the arbitration clause contained in the insurance policy?
2
Benson v. Casa de Capri Enterps., LLC, 980 F.3d 1328, 1333 (9th Cir. 2020).
The Arizona Supreme Court granted our request for certification. On January
20, 2022, it issued a decision holding that “[t]he common law doctrine of direct
benefits estoppel cannot be invoked in a garnishment action to bind the judgment
creditor to the terms of the contract because applying the doctrine in this context
would contravene Arizona’s statutory garnishment scheme.” Benson v. Casa de
Capri Enterps., LLC, --- P.3d ---, 2022 WL 176288, at *1 (Ariz. Jan. 20, 2022). The
court reasoned that garnishment proceedings in Arizona must “adhere to prescribed
statutory procedures,” which “include[] the statutory requirement that the trial
court—not an arbitrator—resolve all factual and legal issues.” Id. at *3.
Accordingly, “[a]llowing the arbitration clause to control in a garnishment
proceeding would undermine the legislature’s intent that the trial court decide the
issues of law and fact.” Id. Based on its answer to this question, the court declined
to reach the second certified question. Id. at *4.
The Arizona Supreme Court’s decision confirms that the district court erred
in granting CCRRG’s motion to compel arbitration under the doctrine of direct
benefits estoppel. We therefore reverse the district court’s judgment and remand for
proceedings consistent with this decision.1
1
CCRRG alternatively argues that the Liability Risk Retention Act of 1986 (LLRA)
preempts state law governing the operation of risk retention groups, and apparently
3
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
by extension precludes Arizona from limiting arbitration provisions in insurance
policies provided by a risk retention group. The district court did not address this
argument and the Bensons argue that CCRRG did not adequately raise it below. We
leave these matters to the district court in the first instance, with the benefit of the
Arizona Supreme Court’s new guidance.
4