Susan Pitt v. Metropolitan Tower Life Insurance Company

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SUSAN A. PITT, Individually, as No. 23-55566 Successor-In-Interest to Michael A.

D.C. No. Pitt, Decedent, on Behalf of the Estate

3:20-cv-00694- of Michael A. Pitt, and on Behalf of

RSH-DEB the Class,

ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant,

GRANTING MOTION TO v.

DISMISS AND MOTION TO

METROPOLITAN TOWER LIFE

WITHDRAW INSURANCE COMPANY, a

CERTIFIED Delaware Corporation,

QUESTION Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of California Robert Steven Huie, District Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted December 5, 2024 Submission Withdrawn February 20, 2025

Resubmitted August 13, 2025 Pasadena, California Filed August 13, 2025

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

Circuit Judges

2 PITT V. METROPOLITIAN TOWER LIFE INS. CO.

COUNSEL

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

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).

PITT V. METROPOLITIAN TOWER LIFE INS. CO. 3 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.