STRATEGIX, LTD., a California corporation; EPASSAGE, INC., a Nevada corporation v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, a Minnesota corporation

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
** The Honorable Carlos F. Lucero, Circuit Judge for the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, sitting by designation.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
STRATEGIX, LTD., a California
corporation; EPASSAGE, INC., a Nevada
corporation,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ST. PAUL FIRE AND MARINE
INSURANCE COMPANY, a Minnesota
corporation,
Defendant - Appellee.
No. 11-56593
D.C. No. 2:11-cv-04638-GAF-
VBK
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Gary A. Feess, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 7, 2013
Pasadena, California
Before: TROTT, LUCERO,** and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.
FILED
JUN 12 2013
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

-- 1 of 2 --

2
Strategix, Ltd. and its parent company, ePassage, Inc. (collectively,
“Strategix”), appeal the district court’s judgment dismissing Strategix’s suit against
St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Co. (“St. Paul”), Strategix’s liability insurer.
Strategix claims that St. Paul wrongfully refused to defend Strategix against a
third-party lawsuit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.
The third-party claims clearly fell within the breach of contract exclusion in
the insurance policy because they “result[ed] from” Strategix’s alleged breach of
the Asset Purchase Agreement and the Consulting Agreement. The alleged breach
had more than “a minimal causal connection or incidental relationship” to the
claims. Medill v. Westport Ins. Corp., 49 Cal. Rptr. 3d 570, 578-79 (Ct. App.
2006). Indeed, Strategix’s “potential liability would not exist without the
contracts.” Id. at 579; see also Cont’l Cas. Co. v. City of Richmond, 763 F.2d
1076, 1081 (9th Cir. 1985) (“The claim need bear only an incidental relationship to
the injury to come within the exclusionary clause . . . .”).
AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --