Sabo v. Metro Life Ins Co

Opinions of the United 2005 Decisions States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 7-8-2005 Sabo v. Metro Life Ins Co Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 04-2829 Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005 Recommended Citation "Sabo v. Metro Life Ins Co" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 882. http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/882 This decision is brought to you for free and open access by the Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit at Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in 2005 Decisions by an authorized administrator of Villanova University School of Law Digital Repository. For more information, please contact Benjamin.Carlson@law.villanova.edu. NOT PRECEDENTIAL UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT ___________ No. 04-2829 ___________ IN RE: METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY SALES PRACTICE LITIGATION RICHARD P. SABO; RONALD COULTER; ANISSA COULTER, his wife; TAMMI BAZY; MICHELLE BLUM; BETH RAIBLE; SHELLEY DAUGHENBAUGH; FRIEDA KAMEL; PATRICIA FREY; CHRISTOPHER CLANCY; JOYCE MCCANDLESS; DIANA JOHNSON; ROBERT HEMCHER; GERALD DEARMITT; ADA DEARMITT, his wife; ANGELO RECUPERO, Residents of Pennsylvania, on behalf of themselves and all persons similarly situated; THOMAS ROSTEK and; JOANN ROSTEK, his wife, guardians for JENNIFER MARIE ROSTEK, a minor; NATHAN BENNETT, guardian for NATHAN BENNETT, JR.and, a minor; RUSSELL GONDER and; PAMELA GONDER, his wife, guardians for CORY GONDER, a minor, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated; JOSEPH KILHOF; MARY KILHOF; ALBERT GIBBS; YVONNE GIBBS; STEPHANIE GIBBS, their daughter, as Policyholders of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; NORMAN J. MILLER; ROSE MILLER, his wife, as Policyholders of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; LOUIS MEROLLI, as Policyholder of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company; JESSIE JONES; KENNETH WOLBERT, Individually and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated; JUANITA I. CASKEY, Individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; KRISTEL M. DAVIS; HARVEY J. WILLIAMS; DENNIS W. BIGGS, individually and on behalf of all others similary situated; RICHARD L. ODDI, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; TIMOTHY A. MOHNEY; GAY N. MOHNEY; JEFFREY A. MOHNEY; AMANDA MARIE MOHNEY, a minor, by TIMOTHY A. MOHNEY, guardian; JOSEPH P. GARRETT, JR., on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated; DOUGLAS SMITH; CHARLES V. AMODEO, on his own behalf and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ROOSEVELT BARDEN, JR., individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; ALBINO A. GABRIELE; CAROLYN STONE; LUTHER STONE; JOSEPH CORRIERE; DONNA CORRIERE; BRENDA LOGUIDICE; MARY CHASTANG; RAYMOND ROSER; LUIS G. AMIONE, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated; CLAIRE A. FALKIN; GARY L. FALKIN; RICHARD B. FALKIN; STUART R. FALKIN; BERMON WHITT; MICHAEL A. RANKIN; TIEN QUANG NGUYEN, M.D.; NGUYEN FAMILY LIFE TRUST; PHONG QUANG NGUYEN, and Trustee; NGUYEN FAMILY LIFE INSURANCE TRUST; ELMER T. ANTHONY; PAULA K. ANTHONY; WILLIAM HARVEY; ARTHUR E. LEACH; RONALD R. HESS v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; GARY ANTONINO; JOEL SHERMAN; RONALD SHRAM; UNITED FOOD COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC; BRUCE A. REZNIK ASSOCIATION; METROPOLITAN INSURANCE & ANNUITY; JEFFREY J. RODGERS; ROBERT MARTINI; JONATHON HOLLY, a Resident of Texas; JAMES D. SPANGLER; STEVEN ANASTASIA; THOMAS M. HYLAND; CHRISTINE DOVAN; JACK E. DUCKWORTH *Helen M. Pennick and Margaret M. MacLean, Appellants *(Pursuant to Rule 12(a), F.R.A.P.) ___________ On Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania (D.C. No. 96-mc-00179) District Judge: The Honorable Donetta W. Ambrose ___________ Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) June 27, 2005 Before: NYGAARD, SMITH, and FISHER, Circuit Judges. (Filed: July 8, 2005) 2 ___________ OPINION OF THE COURT ___________ NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Having considered the record and the parties’ briefs, we will affirm, essentially for the reasons stated by the District Court in its order dated May 27, 2004. Specifically, we find the injunction against the state court proceedings to be justified under the “protect or effectuate its judgments” exception to the Anti-Injunction Act. See 28 U.S.C. § 2283. _________________________ 3