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)

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
[e-mail]
Bart A. Karwath
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Jennifer Tudor Wright
BARNES & THORNBURG LLP (Indianapolis)
[e-mail]
Andrew M. Grabhorn
GRABHORN LAW OFFICE PLLC
[e-mail]
Michael D. Grabhorn
GRABHORN LAW OFFICE, PLLC
[e-mail]

4