KELLY v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Filing 23

ENTRY ON DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS - 13 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim is DENIED without prejudice. Instead, this action is STAYED pending resolution of both the state court action and the Kennedy case. Should Kelly opt t o pursue her unrelated "benefits" claim now, rather than await a resolution of both the parallel state court case and the Kennedy case, Kelly may move to either lift the stay solely for her "benefits" claim or move to dismiss her "benefits" claim without prejudice and refile it in a separate lawsuit. The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report to this Court detailing the status of both the state court action and the Kennedy case within six (6) months from the date of this Entry, or within seven (7) days of the conclusion of both the state court action and the Kennedy case, whichever event occurs first. See Entry for details. Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 6/2/2016. (LBT)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA NEW ALBANY DIVISION LANISA KELLY, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated individuals, Plaintiff, v. LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. 4:15-cv-00126-TWP-DML ENTRY ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS This matter is before the Court on Defendant Lincoln National Life Insurance Company’s (“Lincoln”), Motion to Dismiss. (Filing No. 13.) Lincoln argues that the Plaintiff, Lanisa Kelly’s (“Kelly”), class claim action in this matter is duplicative or subsumed by claims raised in a related case, Kennedy v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., No. 4:15-cv-00099-TWP-DML. (“Kennedy”). In her response to the Motion, Kelly concedes that her “offset” class claim is sufficiently similar to the class claims raised in the Kennedy case. (Filing No. 21 at 4.) However, rather than suffer an outright dismissal of her case, she requests consolidation of the similar claim with the Kennedy case. Id. at 4-5. Specifically, Kelly makes the following request: While the other pending cases contain offset claims that are similar to Kelly’s offset claims, Lincoln’s motion should be denied. Dismissal with prejudice is inappropriate as it would prevent Kelly from obtaining any relief-either for her benefits claim (which is not present in the other cases) and for offset claim. Instead, the proper course of action is for the Court to consolidate the Kelly offset claims with the Kennedy claims and to allow her benefits claim to proceed as filed. Id. Although Kelly suggested a resolution of her similar class claim, she did not offer a suggestion of what should be done about her “benefits” claim, which she maintains is independent of her class action “offset” claim. Lincoln argues that dismissal of Kelly’s “offset” claim is more appropriate than consolidation. Lincoln contends that Kelly’s attorneys filed this lawsuit to avoid a stay or dismissal of the Kennedy case and argue that granting consolidation would reward “gamesmanship”. (Filing No. 22 at 8-9.) Specifically, Lincoln asserts that this case was filed by the same attorneys in the Kennedy case the day after Lincoln revealed that it was filing a motion to dismiss or stay in the Kennedy case. Id. (“[p]laintiff’s improper use of duplicative lawsuits for tactical, procedural reasons should not be rewarded by this Court by honoring Plaintiff’s counsel’s request to consolidate the improperly filed actions.”). As a result, Lincoln argues that Kelly’s case should be dismissed without prejudice, allowing the Kennedy class claims to proceed as first filed and allowing Kelly to file a new lawsuit to address her unrelated “benefits” claim. On May 23, 2016, this Court stayed the Kennedy case. In so ruling, the Court noted that the Kennedy case also paralleled a first-filed state court case1 and concluded that a stay would avoid piecemeal litigation, “given that the parties’ claims are likely to be substantially or fully resolved by the state action”. (See Id. at Filing No. 28, p. 3.) In the instant case, Kelly has conceded that her “offset” class claim is identical or is otherwise subsumed by the claims raised in the Kennedy case. As such, a resolution of the parallel state court case would have the same effect on the class claims raised in the Kennedy case and on Kelly’s “offset” class claim. Accordingly, the reasons justifying a stay in the Kennedy case also apply in Kelly’s case, at least to her class “offset” claim. Rather than consolidate Kelly’s “offset” claim, the more prudent approach is to also stay Kelly’s case pending resolution of the parallel state court case. 1 The state action is pending in the Washington Circuit Court, State of Indiana, Case No. 88C01-1411-PF-000652. 2 In addition, the Court considers it appropriate to also stay Kelly’s case pending resolution of the Kennedy case, in that Kelly raises an unrelated “benefits” claim in addition to her similar class claim. See Askin v. Quaker Oats Co., No. 11 CV 111, 2012 WL 517491, *5 (N.D. Ill. 2012) (quoting Cent. States, S.E. & S.W. Areas Pension Fund v. Paramount Liquor Co., 203 F.3d 442, 444 (7th Cir. 2000) (“[w]hen comity among tribunals justifies giving priority to a particular suit, the other action (or actions) should be stayed, rather than dismissed, unless it is absolutely clear that dismissal cannot adversely affect any litigant’s interests”); Gleash v. Yuswak, 308 F.3d 758, 760 (7th Cir. 2002) (“[e]ven when prudence calls for putting a redundant suit on hold, it must be stayed rather than dismissed unless there is no possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff.”). Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice Lincoln’s Motion to Dismiss. (Filing No. 13.) Instead, this action is STAYED pending resolution of both the state court action and the Kennedy case. Should Kelly opt to pursue her unrelated “benefits” claim now, rather than await a resolution of both the parallel state court case and the Kennedy case, Kelly may move to either lift the stay solely for her “benefits” claim or move to dismiss her “benefits” claim without prejudice and refile it in a separate lawsuit. The parties are ORDERED to submit a joint status report to this Court detailing the status of both the state court action and the Kennedy case within six (6) months from the date of this Entry, or within seven (7) days of the conclusion of both the state court action and the Kennedy case, whichever event occurs first.2 SO ORDERED. Date: 6/2/2016 2 The Court notes that attorneys in the Kennedy case also represent the parties in the Kelly case. As such, there is no doubt that the parties in the Kelly case are following the two related matters. 3 DISTRIBUTION: John M. Scannapieco BAKER, DONELSON, BEARMAN, CALDWELL & BERKOWITZ, PC jscannapieco@bakerdonelson.com Bart A. Karwath BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (Indianapolis) bart.karwath@btlaw.com Jennifer Tudor Wright BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (Indianapolis) jennifer.tudor@btlaw.com Andrew M. Grabhorn GRABHORN LAW OFFICE PLLC a.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com Michael D. Grabhorn GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC m.grabhorn@grabhornlaw.com 4

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?