PITT v. METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY (2025)

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Susan A. PITT, Individually, as Successor-In-Interest to Michael A. Pitt, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate of Michael A. Pitt, and on Behalf of the Class, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 23-55566

Decided: August 13, 2025

Before: Jay S. Bybee, Sandra S. Ikuta, and Bridget S. Bade, Circuit Judges

Jon R. Williams (argued), Williams Iagmin LLP, San Diego, California; Sarah Ball and Jack B. Winters Jr., Winters & Associates, La Mesa, California; Craig Nicholas and Alex Tomasevic, Nicholas & Tomasevic LLP, San Diego, California; Jonna Lothyan and Benjamin I. Siminou, Singleton Schreiber LLP, San Diego, California; for Plaintiff-Appellant. Sandra D. Hauser (argued), Dentons US LLP, New York, New York; Jeffrey A. Zachman, Dentons US LLP, Atlanta, Georgia; Spencer D. Hamilton, Dentons US LLP, Dallas, Texas; Peter Stockburger, McKenna Long & Aldridge LLP, San Diego, California; for Defendant-Appellee.

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO WITHDRAW CERTIFIED QUESTION

This panel asked the California Supreme Court to answer a certified question on February 20, 2025 to determine whether California Insurance Code §§ 10113.71 and 10113.72 apply to life insurance policies originally issued or delivered in another state but maintained by a policy owner in California (Dk. 69). The California Supreme Court granted the request on April 16 (Dk. 76). On July 11, while the question was still under consideration with the California Supreme Court, the parties filed a joint notice of a settlement and release agreement, asking this Court to withdraw the certified question (Dk. 78). On July 29, the parties filed a joint stipulated request for dismissal of this action with prejudice in its entirety, having reached settlement (Dk. 83).

Because the parties have settled, their joint stipulated motion for dismissal with prejudice (Dk. 83) and their joint motion to withdraw the certified question (Dk. 78) are GRANTED. Each party bears its own costs, expenses, and attorneys' fees.

The clerk of the court is directed to serve this order on the California Supreme Court.

Was this helpful?

Why was this helpful?

Easy to understand

Solved my problem

Other

Why was this not helpful?

Missing the information I need

Too complicated / too many steps

Out of date

Other

Thank you for your feedback!

Welcome to FindLaw's Cases & Codes

A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.

Go To Learn About The Law