Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Spurgeon v. Pacific Life Ins. Co.

March 6, 2007

JAMES E. SPURGEON, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF ALL OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED, PLAINTIFF,
v.
PACIFIC LIFE INS. CO., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Reagan, District Judge

MEMORANDUM and ORDER

This putative class action originated in Illinois state court and challenges a market-timing trading strategy used by Pacific Life, a manager of mutual funds and issuer of variable annuities. The case trekked a long and winding procedural road before being re-removed to this District Court four months ago. The action comes now before the Court on lead Plaintiff James Spurgeon's remand motion, filed December 14, 2006 and fully briefed by counsel.

This is one of several market-timing cases which were removed to this District Court in 2004, randomly assigned to three District Judges, remanded to Illinois state court, appealed to (and reversed by) the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and ultimately taken on certiorari by the United States Supreme Court. Subject matter jurisdiction is invoked under the federal question statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, based on the Securities Litigation Uniform Standards Act of 1998 ("SLUSA"), 15 U.S.C. § 78bb(f)(1)(A).

The central question is whether defects in Pacific Life's removalprocedurewarrant remand of the case to the Circuit Court of Madison County, Illinois.

Pacific Life removed this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1446(b). Section 1446(b) provides that if a case stated by the initial pleading was not removable, it may be removed within 30 days after the defendant receives an "amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable." Pacific Life maintains that its November 2006 removal came within 30 days of the "orders from which it could first be determined that it was removable" (Removal Notice, Doc. 2-1, p. 2).

More specifically, Pacific Life asserts that the case became removable when one of two things happened in November 2006: (1) a Madison County Circuit Court Judge reopened the case on November 9, 2006, or (2) the undersigned District Judge entered an Order on November 20, 2006 which vacated a prior judgment in favor of Pacific Life and remanded the case to Madison County.

Both Orders on which re-removal is premised were issued in the wake of the United States Supreme Court's June 2006 opinion in Kircher v. Putnam Funds Trust, 126 S.Ct. 2145 (2006)("Kircher III"). Analysis begins here.

In Kircher III, the high Court held that the remand Orders entered by the Judges of this District Court in 2004 (challenged by Pacific Life via direct appeal) were non-appealable under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). So, the Seventh Circuit lacked jurisdiction to review (and reverse) this Court's remand Orders in the market-timing cases.

On October 16, 2006, in In Re Mutual Fund Market-Timing Litigation, 468 F.3d 439 (also known as "Kircher IV"), the Seventh Circuit announced what Kircher III required in the twenty-some cases which had been appealed.*fn1 The Court divided the lawsuits into three groups for analysis. The appeal in the above-captioned case (Appeal No. 05-3011 -- Plaintiff's appeal from Judge Reagan's May 2005 Order and Judgment in favor of Pacific Life) fell into the group termed the "Potter appeals,"*fn2 each of which -- the Seventh Circuit explained -- "must return to the state court in which it was filed." The Seventh Circuit's opinion concluded: "All of these cases .... must be remanded to state court." Id. at 444.

The Seventh Circuit issued the mandate in this consolidated appeal on November 14, 2006. Six days later, on November 20th, in accord with the express instructions of the Seventh Circuit, the undersigned Judge vacated the May 2006 judgment in favor of Pacific Life and remanded this case to state court.

Before the Seventh Circuit issued its mandate (and before this Court's November 20th Order remanding the case to Madison County), Plaintiff's counsel asked the state court (Judge Nicholas G. Byron) to reopen the case. At that time, Plaintiff's counsel understandably but incorrectly believed the case already was back in state court, despite the fact the Seventh Circuit had not issued its mandate.*fn3

Judge Byron granted the motion and reopened the case in Madison County Circuit Court on November 9, 2006. Pacific Life removed the case four days later, and it was assigned Case No. 06-0925 in this Court. After the undersigned Judge issued the November 20th Order, Pacific Life (taking no chances) again removed the case. It was assigned Case No. 06-0983. Case No. 06-0925 later was consolidated into Case 06-0983.

Plaintiff argues: "There are no removal 'do-overs'" (Doc. 13, p. 11). He contends that (1) the law of the case doctrine or (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) prohibits this Court from "reconsidering" its earlier conclusion that this case fell outside the reach of SLUSA; (3) Pacific Life cannot remove this case based on Merrill, Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Dabit, 126 S.Ct. 1503 (2006), even if that case changed existing law; and (4) this removal was not based on an order or other paper "from which it may first be ascertained" that the case is or has become removable. According to Plaintiff, the undersigned District Judge had one shot at deciding where this case belonged (state or federal court), and "right or wrong" the 2004 remand Order constitutes a "forum designation that is conclusive" (Doc. 13, p. 10). Thus, Plaintiff reasons, whether Dabitforecloses Plaintiff's claims is a decision that only the Illinois state court now can make.

This Court can easily dispose of Plaintiff's first two arguments. Neither the law of the case doctrine nor 28 U.S.C. ยง ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.