Case 2:22-cv-04640-TJH-KES Document 24 Filed 11/30/22 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:362

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 United States District Court 9 Central District of California 10 Western Division 11 12 LAWANDA SMALL, CV 22-04640 TJH (KESx)

13 Plaintiff, 14 v. Order 15 ALLIANZ LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, 16 Defendant. 17 18 19 The Court has considered Plaintiff Lawanda Small’s motion to remand [dkt. # 20 16] and Defendant Allianz Life Insurance Company of North America’s [“Allianz”] 21 motion to dismiss [dkt. # 13], together with the moving and opposing papers. 22 On February 27, 2020, Small filed a putative class action – Small v. Allianz Life 23 Ins. Co. of N. Am. (Small I), No. CV 20-01944 THJ (KES). Small’s Complaint [“the 24 Small I Complaint”] centered on the allegation that, in 2019, Allianz wrongfully denied 25 her life insurance claim, tendered under her late husband’s life insurance policy [“the 26 Policy”]. Small alleged that Allianz had, inter alia, failed to provide the mandatory 27 30-day notice of a missed premium payment and failed to provide the mandatory 60- 28 day grace period before terminating the Policy. The Small I Complaint alleged four Order Page 1 of 4 Case 2:22-cv-04640-TJH-KES Document 24 Filed 11/30/22 Page 2of4 Page ID #:363

1 | claims, including a claim for injunctive relief and restitution pursuant to California’s 2 || Unfair Competition Law [“UCL”],

, et seq. 3 On March 29, 2022, the Court struck the Small I Complaint’s prayer for 4 || injunctive relief because she lacked standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. 5 || Additionally, the Court dismissed Small’s UCL claim, to the extent that it arose under 6 | the UCL’s unfair and fraudulent prongs, for failure to meet the heightened pleading 7 || requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). Small’s claim under the UCL’s unlawful prong 8 || remains pending before this Court. 9 On May 31, 2022, Small filed this case in the Los Angeles County Superior 10 || Court as a second putative class action against Allianz [“Small I”]. The Small IT 11 || Complaint alleged a single claim for injunctive relief pursuant to the UCL’s unlawful 12 || conduct prong and contained nearly identical allegations to those in the Small I 13 || Complaint. On July 7, 2022, Allianz removed this case. 14 Small, now, moves to remand Small IT, pursuant to

(c), and 15 || Allianz moves to dismiss Small IT, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). 16 Small argued that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this case 17 || because she still lacks standing to seek prospective injunctive relief. In Small I, the 18 || Court held that Small lacked standing to seek prospective injunctive relief because she 19 || failed to allege that she was “realistically threatened by a repetition of [Allianz’s alleged 20 || violations].’” See Armstrong v. Davis,

(9th Cir. 2001) (quoting 21 || City of Los Angeles vy. Lyons,

(1983), overruled on other grounds by 22 || Johnson v. California,

(2005)). 23 Here, in Small II, Small expanded the scope of her requested injunctive relief 24 || by seeking both prospective and retrospective injunctive relief, though it is based on the 25 || same claim and facts alleged in Small I. As she requested in Small I, Small is seeking 26 | an injunction, here, for “stopping and remedying the ongoing violations of The 27 || Statutes.” She is, also, seeking, here, two new forms of injunctive relief. Small is 28 | seeking an injunction “to reverse or invalidate [Allianz’s] ongoing lapsing or

Order Page 2 of 4

Case 2:22-cv-04640-TJH-KES Document 24 Filed 11/30/22 Page 3of4 Page ID #:364

1 || repudiation of life insurance policies that are to be deemed in-force as a matter of law” 2 || and “to command the payment of all owed policy benefits[.]” 3 The Court must evaluate whether Small has standing to seek injunctive relief for 4 || each form of injunctive relief. See DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno,

, 352 5 || (2006). As before, Small lacks standing for an injunction to “stop[] and remedy[] the 6 | ongoing violations of The Statutes” because that relief is prospective. However, her 7 || request to invalidate Allianz’s alleged “ongoing lapsing or repudiation of life insurance 8 || policies” seeks both prospective and retroactive injunctive relief, while her request for 9 || injunctive relief for compensation for wrongly denied claims is purely retroactive. 10 || Here, Small has standing to seek retroactive relief because she has pled that she 11 || suffered an injury in fact, caused by Allianz, that is redressable by the Court. See 12 || Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins,

(2016). 13 The question, then, is whether the Court should remand Small’s entire UCL 14 || claim, or only that portion of the claim that seeks prospective injunctive relief. The 15 || Ninth Circuit has declined to resolve whether claims should be partially remanded when 16 || standing is lacking for only some forms of relief. See Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark 17 || Corp.,

, 970 n.6 (9th Cir. 2018). 18 If the Court remands only a portion of Small’s UCL claim, the remaining portion 19 || will be dismissed because Small J is still pending - plaintiffs “generally have no right 20 || to maintain two separate actions involving the same subject matter at the same time in 21 || the same court and against the same defendant.” Mendoza v. Amalgamated Transit 22 || Union Intl,

(9th Cir. 2022). Where remand and dismissal are both 23 || available options, judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity favor remand. 24 || See Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill,

(1988). 25 26 Accordingly, 27 28 At is Ordered that this case be, and hereby is, Remanded.

Order Page 3 of 4

Case 2:22-cv-04640-TJH-KES Document 24 Filed 11/30/22 Page 4of4 Page ID #:365

1 At is further Orsered that the motion to dismiss be, and hereby is, Denied 2 || as moot. 4 || Date: November 30, 2022 ae

6 & vy J. Hatter, H. ; Senior Anited States District Jusge 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Order Page 4 of 4