Abbit v. Ing USA Annuity

Full title: ERNEST O. ABBIT, on behalf of himself and on behalf of all persons…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CASE NO. 13cv2310-GPC-WVG

Date published: Nov 16, 2015

Fact:

Plaintiff Ernest O. Abbit brings this action, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, alleging that Defendants ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company and ING U.S., Inc. (“Defendants” or “ING”) unlawfully target senior citizens by marketing indexed-annuity contracts that purport to protect retirement savings while hiding an undisclosed complex embedded derivative structure. (FAC 3-9, ECF No. 20.) Plaintiff asserts that the design and execution of the derivatives have caused him and putative class members harm.

Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Class Certification, Appointment of Class Representative and Appointment of Class Counsel. (ECF No. 39.) ING opposed Plaintiff’s motion on May 15, 2015. (ECF No. 43.) Plaintiff filed a reply on May 29, 2015. (ECF No. 46.) A hearing was held on June 25, 2015. Having considered the parties’ submissions and oral arguments, as well as the applicable law,  the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion.

Issue:

CONCLUSION:

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Plaintiff’s motion for class certification. (ECF No. 39.) The following classes are hereby certified under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(3) as to the causes of action approved herein:

The court has granted in part and denied in part the plaintiff’s motion for class certification in a case involving ING USA Annuity and Life Insurance Company. The court certified three classes: Multi-State Class, California Class, and California Seniors Subclass. The court designates Plaintiff Ernest O. Abbit as class representative and appoints Hutton Law Group and Tatro & Zamoyski, LLP as class counsel. The court directed the parties to submit a joint proposed notice to the classes by December 14, 2015. The court overruled objections to evidence based on the plaintiff’s objections, stating that it did not rely on any inadmissible evidence.

IT IS SO ORDERED

Related Post

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

nineteen − 17 =