HUFFMAN et al v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, No. 2:2010cv05135 - Document 175 (E.D. Pa. 2018)

Court Description: 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, )

Download PDF
HUFFMAN et al v. THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA Doc. 175 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.