WEST et al v. CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY

Filing 29

ORDER denying 18 Motion for Reconsideration ; denying 22 Motion to Join Additional Plaintiffs. Signed by Judge Cathy Bissoon on 5/11/2012. (rtt)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
JOHN N. WEST and PETER SHLOSKY,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CUNA MUTUAL INSURANCE SOCIETY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 11-1259
Judge Cathy Bissoon

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I.

MEMORANDUM

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 18) of this
Court’s Order (Doc. 16) dismissing Plaintiff’s class action claims, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join
Additional Plaintiffs (Doc. 22). For the reasons stated herein, the Court will deny Plaintiffs’
Motion for Reconsideration and deny Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs John N. West and Peter Shlosky brought this action, individually and on behalf
of a class of similarly situated individuals, alleging wrongful denial and/or termination of credit
disability benefits under insurance policies issued by Defendant CUNA Mutual Insurance
Society. See Compl. (Doc. 1). This Court granted a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ putative class
action claims. See Memo. & Order, Feb. 16, 2012 (Doc. 16). Plaintiffs move for
reconsideration of this Court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ putative class action claims.
Apparently in the alternative, Plaintiffs move to join 1,128 additional Plaintiffs.

1

ANALYSIS
A. Motion for Reconsideration
A proper motion for reconsideration “must rely on one of three grounds: (1) an
intervening change in controlling law; (2) the availability of new evidence; or (3) the need to
correct clear error of law or prevent manifest injustice.” Lazaridis v. Wehmer, 591 F.3d 666,
669 (3d Cir. 2010) (citing N. River Ins. Co. v. CIGNA Reinsurance Co., 52 F.3d 1194, 1218 (3d
Cir. 1995)). Plaintiffs have not identified any intervening change in controlling law or any new
evidence. Plaintiffs, therefore, must rely on a need to correct clear error of law or prevent
manifest injustice. Plaintiffs have not explicitly alleged any clear error of law or manifest
injustice. The Court, nonetheless, assumes Plaintiffs contend a need to correct a clear error of
law.
Plaintiffs argue that this Court should have conducted the “rigorous analysis” required to
determine if the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 have been satisfied, see
Landsman & Funk PC v. Skinder-Strauss Assocs., 640 F.3d 72, 93 (3d Cir. 2011), that issues to
be determined in this case are appropriate for class treatment, and that dismissal of the class
claims would be a “tragic waste” of resources. This Court’s decision was based on a finding that
collateral estoppel bars their class action claims. Specifically, this Court determined that the
issue of whether class certification is appropriate already was litigated and determined in
previous litigation. See Memo. & Order, Feb. 16, 2012 (Doc. 16). Plaintiffs do not contend that
this Court erred in that determination. The arguments raised in Plaintiffs’ motion for
reconsideration instead address whether class treatment is appropriate – an issue already

2

determined in the previous litigation. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration, therefore, is
denied.1
B. Motion to Join
In an apparent effort to circumvent this Court’s order dismissing Plaintiffs’ class action
claims, Plaintiffs also move to join 1,128 additional proposed Plaintiffs who have similar
contracts with Defendant. Plaintiffs assert that the 1,128 proposed Plaintiffs “are properly joined
pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 20 since their claims arise out of the ‘same
transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences’ and ‘common questions’ of law
will ‘arise in the action.’” Pls’ Mot. to Join ¶ 6 (Doc. 22). Plaintiffs, however, provide no
explanation for how the 1,128 proposed Plaintiffs satisfy Rule 20’s requirements for joinder.
Because Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that the 1,128 proposed Plaintiffs can be properly
joined, Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join is denied.
CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons stated above, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. 18) is
denied and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join (Doc. 22) is denied.

1

Plaintiffs alternatively request transfer of this case to Judge Conti, who presided over the
previous litigation, or certification of this Court’s order for interlocutory appeal. This Court
declines to transfer this case to Judge Conti, as Judge Conti transferred this case to the
undersigned. This Court also denies Plaintiffs’ request for certification for interlocutory
appeal, because Plaintiffs have provided no legal basis for interlocutory appeal and have not
even addressed this issue in their brief.
3

II.

ORDER

For the reasons stated above, the Court hereby ORDERS that Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Reconsideration (Doc. 18) is DENIED, and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Join (Doc. 22) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ Cathy Bissoon
Cathy Bissoon
United States District Judge
May 11, 2012
cc (via e-mail):
All counsel of record.

4