Shingle Bureau, 997 F.2d at 622 (internal quotation and citation omitted). The district court concluded that the determinative state law issue in this case is whether MERLO is preempted by state law because it duplicates or contradicts HSAA. Fireman’s Fund, 41 F.Supp.2d at 1112-13. The district court ultimately found that because “California courts have not spoken definitively in this matter,” the third Pullman factor has been satisfied. Id. at 1113. Again, we respectfully disagree. The fact that a state court has not ruled on the precise issue at stake in this case does not mean that the proper resolution of the state law issue is “uncertain.” Constantineau, 400 U.S. at 439, 91 S.Ct. 507; see also Pearl Invest. Co. v. City & County of San Francisco, 774 F.2d 1460, 1465 (9th Cir.1985) (<HOLDING>). On the contrary, California has left several
holding that when there is no ruling by the states highest court it is the duty of the federal court to determine as best it can what the highest court of the state would decide holding that uncertainty for pullman abstention means that a federal court cannot predict with any confidence how a states highest court would decide an issue of state law holding that a federal court must decide an issue regarding the interpretation of a state law according to its anticipation of how the highest state court would hold holding that a federal court sitting in diversity must predict how a state court would decide an issue holding that when highest court of state has not decided particular issue of substantive law federal court faced with this issue in diversity must make an erie guess as to how highest court would rule