HUFFMAN et al v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA

Filing 175

OPINION/ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO AMEND/CORRECT THE ORDERS DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION, ECF NO. 164, IS GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR ON 1/29/18. 1/29/18 ENTERED AND COPIES E-MAILED. (ky, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
__________________________________________
CLARK R. HUFFMAN;
PATRICIA L. GRANTHAM;
LINDA M. PACE; and
BRANDI K. WINTERS, individually and
on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,

:
:
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs,
:
:
v.
:
:
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY :
OF AMERICA,
:
:
Defendant.
:
__________________________________________

No. 2:10-cv-05135

ORDER
AND NOW, this 29th day of January, 2018, upon consideration of the Plaintiffs’ Motion
to Amend/Correct the Orders Denying Class Certification, ECF No. 164, and the Response in
opposition thereto, ECF No. 169, and for the reasons set forth in the opinion issued this date, it is
ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as
follows:
1. This Court hereby CERTIFIES a Rule 23(b)(3) Subclass defined as follows:
All beneficiaries of ERlSA-governed employee benefit plans that were sponsored
by J.P. Morgan Chase, Inc. or Con-Way, Inc., and that were insured by group life
insurance contracts issued by Prudential that provided “Life Insurance is normally
paid to the beneficiary in one sum,” for whom Prudential established an “Alliance
Account” between September 30, 2004, and October 31, 2011.
Excluded from the subclass are beneficiaries of contracts that were sitused in
Arkansas, Colorado, or Nevada, and beneficiaries who resided in Maryland.

1
012618

2. The following claims will be resolved on a class basis: 1 (1) whether Prudential
breached fiduciary duties under ERISA by paying benefits to Subclass members through
Alliance Accounts; and (2) whether Prudential violated ERISA’s prohibited transaction
provisions by using Alliance Accounts to retain and invest funds due to Subclass
members.
3. Plaintiffs’ motion is DENIED with respect to the proposed Class.
4. Plaintiffs’ counsel of record are APPOINTED class counsel. 2
5. Parties shall confer and report to this Court their proposals for further proceedings
within fourteen days of the date of this Order.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Joseph F. Leeson, Jr.____________
JOSEPH F. LEESON, JR.
United States District Judge

1

Rule 23(c)(1)(B)’s requirement that a certification order “define the class and the class
claims, issues, or defenses,” means that order or an incorporated opinion must include “(1) a
readily discernible, clear, and precise statement of the parameters defining the class or classes to
be certified, and (2) a readily discernible, clear, and complete list of the claims, issues or
defenses to be treated on a class basis.” Wachtel ex rel. Jesse v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,
453 F.3d 179, 187–88 (3d Cir. 2006).
2
This Court determines that Plaintiffs’ counsel of record have substantial experience in
handling class actions of similar complexity, including class action suits involving similar claims
under ERISA. Furthermore, Plaintiffs’ counsel have ably represented Plaintiffs from the
beginning of this litigation. Therefore, appointment as class counsel is appropriate.
2
012618