Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company
- Haywood Gilliam
- 4:21-cv-09739
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual, Judge Gilliam denied amendment in the individual case and denied the company’s dismissal motion without prejudice in the class case.
Frank Lowenberg and the proposed class-action parties were affected: the amendment was denied, while the company’s motion to strike or dismiss was denied without prejudice and limited class-related discovery was ordered.
What happened
Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company involves two related cases: one individual case and one proposed class action. Frank Lowenberg alleges that Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company unlawfully terminated health insurance policies.
The court denied Lowenberg’s request to file a first amended complaint because he did not show the required good cause for changing the case schedule. The court found that he was not diligent, that no newly discovered facts justified amendment, and that further delay would unfairly harm the company.
The court also denied the company’s motion to strike or dismiss without prejudice, meaning the company may raise the arguments again later. Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. declined to decide the choice-of-law, class-certification, and claims involving residents of another state at this early stage, and directed the parties to conduct limited discovery about the number of proposed class members.
The detailed version
- Lowenberg v. Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company · No. 4:21-cv-09739
- Haywood Gilliam
- Apr. 27, 2023
Background
The order addresses two related cases: an individual action and a proposed class action. Frank Lowenberg alleges that Illinois Mutual Life Insurance Company unlawfully terminated health insurance policies. In the individual case, Lowenberg sought leave to file a first amended complaint. In the proposed class action, the company moved to strike or dismiss.
Motion to Amend
The court denied Lowenberg’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint at the hearing. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(b), a party seeking to modify a scheduling order must show good cause. The court concluded that Lowenberg had not been diligent in seeking amendment, which was the primary consideration under the rule. The court noted that Lowenberg filed a related class action three days before the amendment deadline, found no newly discovered facts warranting amendment, and determined that prolonging the case would unduly prejudice the company because Lowenberg’s counsel had repeatedly missed deadlines.
Motion to Strike or Dismiss
The court denied the company’s motion to strike or dismiss without prejudice. It found the company’s arguments premature and declined to conduct a choice-of-law analysis or decide class certification at that stage because the record did not contain enough information. Although the company challenged standing, the court said the company did not actually argue that Lowenberg failed to satisfy Article III’s requirements. The court also declined at that time to decide whether Lowenberg could bring claims on behalf of residents of another state.
The parties agreed to conduct limited discovery concerning numerosity—the number of members in the proposed class—which might lead Lowenberg to abandon the class action. The court directed the parties to conduct targeted discovery, submit a joint status report by May 31, 2023, meet and confer about private mediation, and submit a new stipulation and proposed order. The order terminated Docket No. 30 in the proposed class action.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.