
    SAN DIEGO UNIFIED PORT DISTRICT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellee.
    No. 14-56811
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Argued and Submitted February 10, 2017 Pasadena, California
    Filed February 17, 2017
    William D. Brown, Scott E. Patterson, Attorneys, Brown & Winters, Attorneys at Law, Cardiff by-the-Sea, CA, Jeffrey Isaac Ehrlich, Esquire, Attorney, The Ehrlich Law Firm, Encino, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant
    Jonathan Hacker, O’Melveny & Myers LLP, Washington, DC, Carey B. Moore-head, Esquire, Attorney, Robert Cooper, Esquire, Attorney, Wilson Elser Moskow-itz Edelman & Dicker LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee
    Before: GRABER, BYBEE, and CHRISTEN, Circuit Judges.
   MEMORANDUM

The San Diego Unified Port District appeals the district court’s denial of its motion for partial summary judgment and the grant of summary judgment in favor of ACE American Insurance Company. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, see Travelers Prop. Cas. Co. of Am. v. ConocoPhillips Co., 546 F.3d 1142, 1145 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

The subject insurance policy includes a very broad exclusion that unambiguously defeats the Port’s claim for coverage. We find no support for the Port’s argument that the exclusion does not apply becaus'e the “gravamen” of the prior proceedings did not include consideration of the Port’s conduct. There were no questions of fact that precluded entry of summary judgment, and the district court did not err by concluding, as a matter of law, that the claims against the Port fall within the policy’s exclusion.

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
     
      
      . The parties are familiar with the facts so they are not repeated here,
     