Moreland v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

• Court: District Court, N.D. California
• Decided: May 19, 2023
• Docket: 3:20-cv-04336
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 SOCORRO MORELAND, 10 Case No. 20-cv-04336-RS Plaintiff, 11 v. ORDER FOR FURTHER BRIEFING 12 THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE 13 COMPANY OF AMERICA, et al., 14 Defendants.

15 16 The hearing on plaintiff’s motion for class certification, set for May 25, 2023, is vacated. 17 By letter dated September 16, 2022, defendant offered to reinstate plaintiff’s life insurance policy, 18 without requiring payment of premiums for the period the policy had been declared lapsed and 19 with credit for the “paid up additional units of insurance” that otherwise would have accrued 20 during that time. The letter advised that plaintiff could accept the offer of reinstatement by paying 21 a $8.60 monthly premium by November 13, 2022. The letter was copied to plaintiff’s counsel of 22 record in this action. 23 By letter dated December 2, 2022, defendant advised plaintiff that it had processed the 24 reinstatement, applied his $8.60 payment, and that his insurance coverage was in effect. Plaintiff 25 filed his motion for class certification on December 2, 2022. Defendant subsequently filed a 26 declaration that plaintiff was current on his payments as of January 30, 2023, and that the policy 27 remained in force. 1 allowed to seek certification even if they have already received complete relief on their individual 2 || claims.” For this proposition, plaintiff relies on Chen v. Allstate Ins. Co., 819 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 3 2016). Chen, however, held only that a defendant could not moot a named plaintiff's individual 4 || claims by placing funds in escrow pending entry of judgment in the plaintiffs favor. Jd. at 1148 5 (“We hold the judgment [defendant] has consented to would afford [plaintiff] complete relief on 6 || his individual claims for damages and injunctive relief. To date, however, [plaintiff] has not 7 actually received complete relief on those claims. Those claims, therefore, are not now moot.”); 8 see also, Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1091-92 (9th Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that an 9 unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment—for the full amount of the named plaintiff's individual 10 claim ... does not moot a class action.” (emphasis added)). Plaintiff also cites to Deposit 11 Guaranty Nat. Bank, Jackson, Miss. v. Roper, 445 U.S. 326 (1980), but there too the claims were 12 || not moot where “[a]t no time did the named plaintiffs accept the tender in settlement of the case.” 5 13 || Id. at 332. 14 Here, in contrast, plaintiff was offered what appears to be complete relief on his individual 3 15 claims, and he affirmatively acted to accept that relief. Accordingly, within 10 days of the date of a 16 || this order, plaintiff shall file a supplemental brief, not to exceed 15 pages, showing why this action 3 17 should not be dismissed as moot, or why, at a minimum, class certification should not be denied. 18 || Within 10 days thereafter, defendant may file a response, also not to exceed 15 pages. The matter 19 will then be taken under submission without further briefing or oral argument, unless otherwise 20 || ordered. 21 22 || ITISSO ORDERED. 23 Dated: May 19, 2023 24 ICHARD SEEBORG 25 Chief United States District Judge 26 27 . CASE No. 20-cv-04336-RS