In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:16-cv-00740
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In re: AXA Equitable COI Litigation: Judge Furman denied AXA’s stay request and ordered revised class-notice efforts while setting opt-out and summary-judgment deadlines.
AXA, the class plaintiffs, ascertainable class members—including non-registered owners—and nominal owners holding policies for different principals. The order also affected counsel through its notice, discovery, scheduling, and conference requirements.
What happened
In In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company COI Litigation, the court resolved remaining disputes about notices to class members and the case schedule. The dispute involved AXA and the class plaintiffs.
The court denied AXA’s request to pause class notice while its Rule 23(f) petition was pending. It set a 90-day opt-out period, required AXA to file summary-judgment motions when the opt-in period ends, and required the class plaintiffs to make all available and reasonable efforts—including subpoenaing registered owners—to identify ascertainable class members, including non-registered owners. The notice must also explain that a nominal owner may stay in or opt out separately for each principal.
Judge Furman scheduled a telephone conference to address notice-related discovery and whether the certified classes should be limited to registered owners of certain policies. The order did not decide that proposed class modification or the underlying claims.
The detailed version
- In re: AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company · No. 1:16-cv-00740
- Jesse Furman
- Sept. 16, 2020
Background
The court reviewed the parties’ submissions concerning class notices and a proposed order in the AXA Equitable Life Insurance Company COI Litigation. The order addressed the parties’ remaining disputes.
Rulings on the parties’ requests
- The court denied AXA’s request to stay, or pause, class notice while AXA pursued a petition under Rule 23(f). The court relied substantially on reasons stated in the class plaintiffs’ September 11, 2020 letter. - The opt-out period shall be 90 days. - AXA shall file its summary-judgment motions on the date the opt-in period ends. The court left all other dates and deadlines in its January 29, 2020 order in effect.
Notice requirements
The court agreed with AXA that the class plaintiffs’ proposed notice plan was inadequate. Relying on federal appellate and Supreme Court decisions concerning class notice, the court required the class plaintiffs to use all available and reasonable efforts to identify the names and addresses of all ascertainable class members, including non-registered owners. Those efforts include subpoenaing registered owners.
The court also accepted the class plaintiffs’ alternative proposal concerning policies held by nominal owners, such as securities intermediaries or trustees. The notice should state that if a nominal owner holds multiple class policies for different principals, that nominal owner may stay in or opt out of the classes separately for each principal.
Further proceedings
The court scheduled a telephone conference for September 22, 2020, to address how to proceed with the notice plan. Counsel were directed to be prepared to discuss notice-related discovery and whether the court should consider briefing on modifying the certified classes to include only registered owners of an AUL I policy. The order noted that the court had previously indicated that AXA appeared to have the stronger argument on that issue but had not decided it because the issue had not been fully presented.
The Clerk of Court was directed to docket the order in all member cases and terminate docket entry 410 in case number 16-CV-740 because that case had erroneously remained open.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.