Arjomand v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

Opinions of the United
2003 Decisions States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
10-8-2003
Arjomand v. Metro Life Ins Co
Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential
Docket No. 03-1081
Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003
Recommended Citation
"Arjomand v. Metro Life Ins Co" (2003). 2003 Decisions. Paper 213.
http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2003/213
This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2003 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova
University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu.
NOT PRECEDENTIAL
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
No. 03-1081
ABDOLLAH ARJOMAND; MARYAM A . SHARIF-EMAMI;
BAHMAN ARJOMAND; HEDAYAT BEHBEHANI;
BADRIEH BEHBEHANI,
Appellants
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE CO.; M ETLIFE, INC.;
METROPOLITAN INSURANCE AND ANNUITY COMPANY;
LAWRENCE A. VRANKA; MEHDI FAKHARZADEH
____________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
(Civ. No. 02-cv-00076 )
District Judge: Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose
____________
Submitted Under Third Circuit L.A.R. 34.1(a)
October 2, 2003
Before: RENDELL, WEIS, and GARTH, Circuit Judges.
(Filed October 8, 2003)
____________
OPINION
WEIS, Circuit Judge.
1
In 1986, plaintiffs purchased life insurance policies from Metropolitan Life
Insurance Company, a mutual organization. The company represented that, because of
earnings applicable to the policies, the premiums would “vanish” at the end of 10 years.
When those predications failed to materialize, plaintiffs complained to the Metropolitan
Life Insurance Company and, in 1997, the parties reached a settlement to “restructure” the
policies.
As a part of this agreement, plaintiffs received single premium policies
issued by the Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company, a stock company and an
affiliate of the Metropolitan Life Insurance Company. The cover page of the policies
bore the name of Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity Company, and stated that they did
not pay dividends.
Plaintiffs were also members of a class action brought against both
Metropolitan companies that covered the period from January 1, 1982 through December
31, 1997. The case was settled in August of 1999, and approved by the District Court in
December 1999.
Beginning in September 1999, Metropolitan Life Insurance Company began
the process of “de-mutualizing,” one result of which was the issuance to its policy holders
of stock in a new company, MetLife, Inc. Because they were not policyholders of
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company at that time, plaintiffs did not receive shares in
MetLife, Inc.
2
Plaintiffs filed suit in the Supreme Court of New York, seeking damages
because they had not been advised that the Metropolitan Insurance and Annuity policies
did not pay dividends and were issued by a non-mutual company. Plaintiffs alleged they
did not become aware of these facts until April 2000, when Metropolitan Life Insurance
Company completed de-mutualization.
Relying on the All Writs Act, defendants removed the case to the Western
District of Pennsylvania, which had approved the class action settlement and had retained
jurisdiction. In view of the then recently decided case of Syngenta Crop Protection, Inc.
v. Henson, 537 U.S. 28 (2002), the District Court concluded that the removal was
improvident. Because Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s contentions could be
construed as a request for an injunction, the District Court decided to entertain the case on
that basis. In order to protect its judgment in the class action, the court enjoined the
plaintiffs from pursuing the state court litigation.
The District Court held that the alleged misrepresentation occurred in 1997,
within the duration of the class action period. Therefore, the claims were included within
the release, which covered omissions and non-disclosures involving the “replacement or
roll-over of an existing policy or annuity with or into a new policy or annuity.” Thus, the
plaintiffs’ claims arose in 1997, when the transition to the new policies occurred, rather
than in 2000, when the de-mutualization took place.
We agree with the District Court’s analysis of the dispute and the scope of
3
the release. Accordingly, we conclude that the issuance of the injunction was a proper
remedy.
The District Court, in the exercise of its discretion, declined to award
plaintiffs the costs and fees associated with the removal of the case from the state court.
Because after the removal the Supreme Court issued its opinion in Syngenta Crop
Protection, which resolved a conflict between the circuits on the right to remove under the
All Writs Act, the District Court concluded that the basis for the removal here was
colorable when it occurred. In Mints v. Educational Testing Service, 99 F.3d 1253 (3d
Cir. 1996), we held that even though a party did not act in bad faith by removing a case,
the District Court nevertheless had broad discretion in deciding whether to award fees and
costs under 28 U.S.C. 1447(c). In the circumstances here, we find no abuse of discretion.
Essentially, for the reasons stated in its opinion, we will affirm the order of
the District Court.
4
______________________________
TO THE CLERK:
Please file the foregoing Opinion.
/s/ Joseph F. Weis Jr
United States Circuit Judge
5