In re New England Mut. Life Ins. Co. Sales

• Decision Date: 06 July 2004
• Docket Number: Model No. MDL-1105(REK).,Civ. No. C.A.96-11534-REK.
• Citation: 324 F.Supp.2d 288
• Parties: In re NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts

324 F.Supp.2d 288

In re NEW ENGLAND MUTUAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SALES PRACTICES LITIGATION.

Model No. MDL-1105(REK).

Civ. No. C.A.96-11534-REK.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

July 6, 2004.

Constantine Athanas, Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Boston, MA, Michael J. Lacek, New England Financial, Boston, MA, for Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendant.

Tamara S. Wolfson, Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Boston, MA, Peter S. Terris, Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Boston, MA, for New England Mutual Life Insurance, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, Defendants.

Alan L. Briggs, Squire, Sanders & Dempsey, Washington, DC, Stephen L. Coco, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., Jonathan T. Foot, Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Boston, MA, Kenneth W. Salinger, Palmer & Dodge, LLP, Boston, MA, for New England Mutual Life Insurance, Defendant.

Earle F. Kyle, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, Minneapolis, MN, Robert W. Biederman, Hubbard & Biederman, Dallas, TX, Stephen Hubbard, Hubbard & Biederman, Dallas, TX, Joseph J. DePalma, Goldstein Lite & DePalma, Newark, NJ, Aaron A. Dean, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, Minneapolis, MN, Richard A. Lockridge, Lockridge, Grindal, Nauen & Holstein, Minneapolis, MN, for Clay M. King, Edwin Suib, Kenneth A. McRaney, Paul A. Wischmeyer, Sarah K. Steiner, Plaintiffs.

Maria Bobonis-Zequeira, Woods & Woods, Hato Rey, PR, Antonio Borres, Woods & Woods, Hato Rey, PR, for Betty Faigenblat, Consolidated Plaintiff.

William Bogot, Krislov & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Edmund S. Goulder, Harold Siagel, Plaintiffs.

John L. Davidson, Frazer Davidson, Jackson, MS, for Albert J. Singletary, Betty Allen, Betty Iles, Edmund P. Miller, Jr., James R. Allen, Jill Marie Koening, Patricia Ann Lee, Roberta Raworth Scarbrough, Consolidated Plaintiffs.

Thomas R. Frazer, II, Frazer Davidson, PA, Jackson, MS, for Betty Iles, Edmund P. Miller, Jr., James R. Allen, Jill Marie Koening, Patricia Ann Lee, Roberta Raworth Scarbrough, Consolidated Plaintiffs.

Nancy F. Gans, Moulton & Gans, PC, Boston, MA, for Clay M. King, Plaintiff.

Kenneth G. Gilman, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, David Pastor, Gilman and Pastor, LLP, Saugus, MA, for Edwin Suib, Plaintiff.

Brian M. Hurley, Rackemann, Sawyer & Brewster, Boston, MA, for Kemper Galleries, Inc., George Edward Kemper, George Emil Kemper, John M. Kemper, Ruby A. Kemper, Plaintiffs.

Warren D. Hutchison, Donovan & Hatem, LLP, Boston, MA, for John Terrill, Movant.

Fred Taylor Isquith, Wolf, Haldenstein, Adler, Freeman & Herz, New York, NY, for Sarah K. Steiner, Plaintiff.

Clinton A. Krislov, Krislov & Associates, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Edmund S. Goulder, Harold Siagel, Plaintiffs.

James P. Langendorf, Froelich & Weprin Co., L.P.A., Dayton, OH, for Magdy Migally, Plaintiff.

Stephen Moulton, Moulton & Gans, PC, Boston, MA, for Clay M. King, Jean C. King, Plaintiffs.

Robert T. Naumes, Thornton & Naumes, LLP, Boston, MA, for Benita Battles, James E. Nabors, Plaintiffs.

Diane A. Nygaard, Nygaard Law Firm, Leawood, KS, for Robert Simpson, Plaintiff.

Richard T. Phillips, Smith, Phillips, Mitchell, Scott & Rutherford, Batesville, MS, for Kenneth A. McRaney, Plaintiff.

Joel P. Suttenberg, Law Office of Joel P. Suttenberg, Boston, MA, for Paul A. Wischmeyer, Plaintiff.

James I. Weprin, Froelich & Weprin Co., L.P.A., Dayton, OH, for Magdy Migally, Plaintiff.

Ronald N. Whitney, Ronald N. Whitney, Whitman, MA, for Kemper Galleries, Inc., George Edward Kemper, George Emil Kemper, John M. Kemper, Ruby A. Kemper, Plaintiffs.

John P. Zavez, Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, Boston, MA, for Michelle J. Muszynski, Paul J. Muszynski, Consolidated Plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM IN EXPLANATION and PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE ORDER NO. 19

KEETON, Senior District Judge.

Practice and Procedure Order No. 19 supplements earlier Practice and Procedure Orders and does not modify any of them.

Memorandum in Explanation

I. Introduction

In Practice and Procedure Order Number 18 (September 24, 2003), this court concluded that the only tag-along civil actions remaining in this MDL proceeding, MDL-1105 (REK), were:

Kendall et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al., N.D. Mississippi, C.A. No. 2:02-287, Civil Action No. 03-11040-REK;

Henderson et al. v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al., S.D. Mississippi C.A. No. 3:03-9, Civil Action No. 03-11041-REK;

Caston et al. v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. et al., N.D. Mississippi, C.A. No. 4:02-275, Civil Action No. 03-11547-REK; and

Pike County National Bank v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co. et al., S.D. Mississippi, C.A. No. 3:03-51, Civil Action No. 03-11548-REK.

This court also noted a schedule for further filings in Kendall and Henderson.

On October 6, 2003, a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit decided In re New England Life Insurance Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 346 F.3d 218 (1st Cir.2003), affirming my decision in In re New England Life Insurance Co. Sales Practices Litigation, 236 F.Supp.2d 69 (D.Mass.2002) (SG Metals Indus., Inc. v. New England Life Ins. Co., No. 02-11626-REK).

On November 24, 2003, this court issued a Memorandum and Order in Kendall (Docket No. 36 in Civil Action No. 03-11040), allowing plaintiffs' motion for enlargement of time to serve defendant Rose Dyson.

On December 12, 2003, this court heard oral argument on all motions pending in Caston and Pike County. Before the hearing on December 12, 2003, this court allowed the requests for leave presented in the following motions:

(1) New England's Motion for Leave To Exceed Page Limit (Docket No. 39, filed December 2, 2003);

(2) Plaintiffs' Motion To File Their Rebuttal Memorandum in Support of Motion To Remand Out of Time (Docket No. 39, filed December 8, 2003);

(3) Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave To Exceed Page Limit (Docket No. 40, filed December 8, 2003).

On January 20, 2004, this court issued an Order in Kendall (Docket No. 39 in Civil Action No. 03-11040), allowing plaintiffs' second motion for enlargement of time to serve defendant Rose Dyson.

On February 6, 2004, a panel of the First Circuit decided Grispino v. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., 358 F.3d 16 (1st Cir.2004), affirming my decision in Grispino v. New England Mutual Life Ins. Co., No. 02-12083-REK (D.Mass. May 20, 2003).

This Memorandum considers and disposes of all pending motions in the four remaining tag-along cases (Kendall, Henderson, Caston, and Pike County). I turn first to a generally applicable issue: the authority of this court to remand MDL-transferred cases directly to state court.

II. Authority of This Court To Remand to State Court

Plaintiffs in all four remaining tag-along cases have moved to remand their respective cases to state court. In three of the four cases, defendants contend that this court, sitting as an MDL transferee court, lacks authority as a matter of law to remand tag-along cases directly to state courts.

It is clear and unambiguous under federal case law, however, that an MDL transferee court may remand a tag-along case to state court. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("MDL Panel") has concluded repeatedly that "pending motions to remand [MDL-transferred actions] to their respective state courts can be presented to and decided by the transferee judge." In re Ford Motor Co. Crown Victoria Police Interceptor Prods. Liab. Litig., 229 F.Supp.2d 1377, 1378 (J.P.M.L.2002); see also In re Western States Wholesale Natural Gas Antitrust Litig., 290 F.Supp.2d 1376, 1378 (J.P.M.L.2003); In re Farmers Ins. Exchange Claims Representatives' Overtime Pay Litig., 196 F.Supp.2d 1373, 1375 (J.P.M.L.2002); In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F.Supp.2d 1346, 1347 (J.P.M.L.2001); In re Air Crash Disaster at Florida Everglades on December 29, 1972, 368 F.Supp. 812, 813 (J.P.M.L.1973).

Furthermore, the arguments that defendants offer in support of their assertion of law are erroneous or irrelevant. For example, defendants contend that, by virtue of having transferred an action to this court, the MDL Panel concluded that this court has subject matter jurisdiction over the action. (See, e.g., Def. New England's Memo. Supporting Resp. to Pl.'s Second Supp., Docket No. 31 in Civil Action No. 03-11041, at 3.) This contention, however, is inconsistent with federal law. The statutory provision that governs multidistrict litigation (28 U.S.C. § 1407) "does not empower the MDL Panel to decide questions going to the jurisdiction or the merits of a case." In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir.1990) (emphasis added).

Defendants, citing to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 and Rule 7.6(b) of the Rules of Procedure of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation, also contend that the MDL Panel, not this court, is empowered to remand cases to transferor courts. (See, e.g., Def. New England's Memo. Supporting Resp. to Pl.'s Second Supp., Docket No. 31 in Civil Action No. 03-11041, at 3.) This contention is correct as far as it goes. But this contention by defendants is irrelevant because the issue here is not remand to the federal transferor court, but rather remand to the original state court.

For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that this court has authority to remand tag-along cases directly to state courts. Accordingly, in the remainder of this Memorandum, I do consider and decide the pending motions to remand in the four remaining tag-along cases.

I turn first to Kendall, Henderson, and Caston, the three of which I consider together because the motions to remand in the three cases present nearly identical issues of diversity jurisdiction and fraudulent joinder. I then address Pike County, which presents issues unique to itself.

III. Kendall (Civil Action No. 03-11040-REK), Henderson (Civil Action No. 03-11041-REK), and Caston (Civil Action No. 04-11547-REK)

A. Pending Matters

1. Kendall

Pending for decision in Kendall (03-11040-REK) are matters related to the following filings:

(1) Plaintiffs' Motion To Remand (Doc...