Siino v. Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company
- Jon Tigar
- 4:20-cv-02904
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Siino v. Foresters, Judge Tigar ordered the parties to explain why the case should not be stayed pending a California Supreme Court decision.
Pamela Siino, Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company, and the proposed class members whose policies are at issue.
What happened
In Siino v. Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company, Pamela Siino alleges that the company improperly terminated her life insurance policy and those of proposed class members without following California law.
The court had previously refused to dismiss Siino’s contract claim and refused to pause the case. Because related appeals were put on hold while the California Supreme Court considers a similar issue, the court reconsidered whether a pause might be appropriate.
Judge Jon S. Tigar ordered both sides to file simultaneous briefs explaining why the case should not be stayed. He also canceled the scheduled hearing on class certification; the order states that the case will be stayed if neither side files a brief.
The detailed version
- Siino v. Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company · No. 4:20-cv-02904
- Jon Tigar
- June 29, 2021
Background
Pamela Siino brought this putative class action against Foresters Life Insurance and Annuity Company. She alleges that Foresters violated California Insurance Code sections 10113.71 and 10113.72 by terminating her life insurance policy, and the policies of proposed class members, without strictly complying with those statutes.
Foresters moved to dismiss Siino’s breach-of-contract claim, arguing that the statutes apply only to policies issued and delivered after January 1, 2013. Foresters alternatively asked the court to stay, or pause, the case while related appeals addressed whether the statutes apply to policies issued and delivered before that date.
The court previously denied the motion to dismiss the contract claim, finding that the statutes were incorporated into Siino’s policy because her annual premium payments renewed the policy. The court also denied the request for a stay, partly because the related appeals might take years to resolve and Foresters had not shown that a stay was appropriate.
Changed circumstances
Since that earlier ruling, the California Supreme Court case McHugh v. Protective Life Ins. was argued and submitted. The Ninth Circuit then stayed proceedings in two related appeals and deferred decisions until the California Supreme Court rules in McHugh. The order also notes that several other federal district courts had stayed similar cases pending the outcomes of McHugh and the related appeals.
Order
The court ordered the parties to show cause—that is, to explain—why this case should not be stayed pending the California Supreme Court’s decision in McHugh. The parties were ordered to file simultaneous briefs of no more than eight pages by July 16, 2021. The court stated that it would stay the case if neither party filed a responsive brief.
The court vacated the hearing on Siino’s motion for class certification, which had been scheduled for July 15, 2021. This order required briefing about a possible stay; the opinion text does not state that the court had already entered the stay.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.