Burnett

Burnett v. Conseco, Inc.

Good Law

87 F. Supp. 3d 1238·2015 WL 1737685·2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 46730

United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaApril 9, 2015Case No. 10-md-02124-SI; Individual Case No. C 12-5906 SICalifornia5,592 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Illston, J.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SANCTIONS

Re: Dkt. Nos. 639, 642, 657

Defendants Conseco Life, CNO Financial Group, Inc., CDOC, Inc., and CNO Services, LLC have moved to dismiss the amended complaint in this putative class action, based on failure to state a claim and lack of personal jurisdiction. Docket Nos. 639, 642. Plaintiffs William Burnett and Joe Camp have filed oppositions, to which defendants have replied. Plaintiffs have also moved for sanctions. Docket No. 657. These motions came on for hearing on March 20, 2015. Having carefully considered the parties’ arguments, the Court GRANTS the motions to dismiss and DENIES the motion for sanctions for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

This is a multi-district ligation involving “LifeTrend 3” and “LifeTrend 4” life insurance policies. Plaintiffs in this action, former policy holders William Burnett and Joe Camp, seek the following on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed class of former LifeTrend policy holders: declarations that Conseco breached their insurance policies and money damages that the class members incurred as a result of the policy breaches.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.