Hanks v. Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company of New York

Background

Helen Hanks brought this class action against Voya Retirement Insurance and Annuity Company, formerly known as Aetna Life Insurance and Annuity Company. The court certified a class in March 2019 and ordered notice to prospective class members. Class members had 45 days after the notice date to send a written request for exclusion, or opt out, to the claims administrator. The deadline was July 29, 2019.

The Gonzalez Family Irrevocable Trust dated August 23, 1994, acting through its trustee C. Anthony Gonzalez, was a member of the certified class. The claims administrator mailed notice to the Trust’s address in Daytona Beach Shores, Florida, and the notice was not returned as undeliverable. Gonzalez did not submit an opt-out request by the deadline.

Gonzalez said he did not receive the notice and was not otherwise aware of the class action. He learned about the action later, confirmed with the claims administrator that the Trust was a class member, and submitted an untimely exclusion request. He then moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b)(1)(B) for permission to opt out after the deadline based on excusable neglect—meaning a legally recognized reason for failing to meet a deadline.

Court’s analysis

The court applied the equitable factors described in Pioneer Investment Services Co. v. Brunswick Associates L.P. Those factors include the prejudice to the opposing party, the length and effect of the delay, the reason for the delay, whether the delay was within the party’s reasonable control, and whether the party acted in good faith. The court noted that the Second Circuit takes a strict approach when a party misses a clear deadline, particularly when the reason for the delay was within the party’s control.

The court concluded that Gonzalez had not shown excusable neglect. It reasoned that the notice had been mailed to the Trust’s address and was not returned. The court also found that Gonzalez, as trustee responsible for the policy, could have exercised greater diligence regarding important policy correspondence. His lack of personal receipt of the notice did not by itself establish that the notice was not delivered or make the notice legally insufficient.

The court rejected Gonzalez’s argument that a Voya customer-service representative should have told him about the class action when he asked questions about the policy. The court stated that a routine inquiry about policy costs did not impose such a duty on the representative.

The court also emphasized that Gonzalez waited after learning that the Trust was a class member before submitting the exclusion request and waited further before seeking permission from the court. That part of the delay was within his control. The court found that the length and reasons for the delay weighed against relief.

The court found that Gonzalez acted in good faith because the evidence did not suggest he intentionally missed the deadline or sought a tactical advantage. It also found the prejudice factor neutral. Nevertheless, the court stated that Voya was generally entitled to rely on a fixed class size and that the deadline was clear. The court concluded that the overall balance of the factors did not support allowing a late opt-out.

Disposition

The court denied Gonzalez’s motion for leave to opt out of the class after the exclusion date. It directed the Clerk to terminate the motion. The court expressly stated that it was not deciding the disposition of any claim Gonzalez might submit to the claims administrator. The order therefore addressed the late opt-out request, not the merits of the underlying dispute.