Opinion
20-cv-02904-JST
06-29-2021
PAMELA SIINO, Plaintiff, v. FORESTERS LIFE INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY, Defendant.
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE WHY CASE SHOULD NOT BE STAYED RE: ECF NO. 70
JON S. TIGAR United States District Judge
In this putative class action, Plaintiff Pamela Siino alleges that Defendant Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company violated California Insurance Code Sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 (“the Statutes”) by terminating her life insurance policy, and the policies of putative class members, without strictly complying with the Statutes.
On June 10, 2020, Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff's breach of contract claim arguing that the Statutes only apply to policies issued and delivered after the Statutes became effective on January 1, 2013. In the alternative, Defendant moved to stay the case pending resolution of appeals before the Ninth Circuit and California Supreme Court which raise the question of whether the Statutes apply to policies issued and delivered before January 1, 2013. See Bentley v. United of Omaha Life Ins. Co., No. 20-55435 (9th Cir.); Thomas v. State Farm Ins. Co., No. 20-55231 (9th Cir.); McHugh v. Protective Life Ins., No. S259215 (Cal. Supreme Ct.). The Court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss Plaintiff's contract claim, finding that the Statutes were incorporated into Plaintiff's policy because her annual premium payments constituted a renewal of the policy. ECF No. 41 at 9. The Court also denied the motion to stay, noting that resolution of the McHugh, Bentley, and Thomas appeals might be years away, and that Defendant had failed to show it would suffer undue prejudice if the case were to proceed. Id. at 16-17.
Since that time, however, the status of the appeals has changed. The McHugh case was argued and submitted on June 2, 2021. The following day, the Ninth Circuit stayed proceedings in both Bentley and Thomas and deferred decisions pending the issuance of the California Supreme Court's decision in McHugh. See Bentley, No. 20-55435, Dkt. 68 (9th Cir. June 3, 2021); Thomas, No. 20-55231, Dkt. 45 (9th Cir. June 3, 2021).
Additionally, several other district courts have considered the propriety of a stay pending the outcome of McHugh, Bentley, and Thomas in similar cases. This Court's denial of a stay now appears to be an outlier. See Phan v. Transamerica Premier Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03665-BLF, 2020 WL 5576358 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 17, 2020) (staying case pending decision in McHugh, Thomas, or Bentley); Grundstrom v. Wilco Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-03445-MMC, 2020 WL 6873645 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 13, 2020) (same); Allen v. Protective Life Ins. Co. and Empire General Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00530, 2020 WL 5878276 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 2, 2020) (same); Holland- Hewitt v. Allstate Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-00652-DAD, 2021 WL 2577023 (E.D. Cal. June 23, 2021) (same); Kelley v. Colonial Penn Life Ins. Co., No. 20-cv-3348 MWF, 2020 WL 6150922 (C.D. Cal. July 13, 2020) (staying case pending decision in McHugh or Thomas); Small v. Allianz Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., No. 20-cv-01944-TJH, 2020 WL 5884757 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 4, 2020) (staying case pending decision in McHugh); see also Moriarty v. Am. Gen. Life Ins. Co., No. 17-cv-1709-BTM, 2020 WL 6938388 (S.D. Cal. Nov. 25, 2020) (denying certification without prejudice to renewing motion after the California Supreme Court renders an opinion in McHugh).
In light of the foregoing, the Court hereby ORDERS THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE why this case should not be stayed pending the decision by the California Supreme Court in McHugh. The parties are ordered to file simultaneous briefs of no more than 8 pages on or before July 16, 2021. If no party files a responsive brief, the Court will stay this case. The hearing on Plaintiffs motion for class certification, ECF No. 70, currently scheduled for July 15, 2021, is hereby VACATED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.