Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-1_07-cv-00664/USCOURTS-almd-1_07-cv-00664-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 850
Nature of Suit: Securities, Commodities, Exchange
Cause of Action: 15:77 Securities Fraud

---

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, SOUTHERN DIVISION

JAMES P. ARANT, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

v. ) 1:07cv664-MHT

) (WO) 

AXA EQUITABLE LIFE )

INSURANCE COMPANY, fka THE )

ASSURANCE SOCIETY OF THE )

UNITED STATES, and AXA )

DISTRIBUTORS, LLC, fka )

EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTORS, )

LLC., )

)

Defendants. )

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

Before the Court are Defendants’ Motion for Judgment

on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 5), Defendants’ Motion for

Stay of Requirements Under Rule 26(f) Order (Doc. No. 6),

and Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Doc.

No. 8). The Court, having considered the record, finds

that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Dismiss Without Prejudice,

pursuant to the findings herein, is due to be GRANTED.

The Court further finds that Defendants’ Motion for

Case 1:07-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 12/12/07 Page 1 of 3
2

Judgment on the Pleadings and Motion for Stay of

Requirements Under Rule 26(f) Order are rendered MOOT.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as pled,

is preempted by the Securities Litigation Uniform

Standards Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. § 77p et seq. (“SLUSA”).

The Court finds that this action falls within SLUSA’s

definition of a “covered class action” because the

Complaint seeks damages on behalf of 75 persons, and

Plaintiffs have pled that those claims are properly

joined “because they arise out of or relate to two series

of transactions and occurrences and present common

questions of law and/or fact.” Complaint at ¶ 15.

Further, the Court finds that the Complaint seeks damages

on the basis of alleged misrepresentations occurring in

connection with the purchase of variable annuity

contracts, which are “covered securities” under SLUSA.

Plaintiffs do not dispute that their claims as pled are

preempted by SLUSA.

Case 1:07-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 12/12/07 Page 2 of 3
Because Plaintiffs’ claims are preempted by SLUSA,

the claims may not be maintained as currently framed.

Plaintiffs could attempt to re-plead their claims before

this Court as an action under the federal securities laws

which complies with the Private Securities Litigation

Reform Act of 1995. Plaintiffs have chosen another

alternative, seeking an order dismissing their claims

without prejudice. This alternative provides Plaintiffs

with the opportunity to re-file their claims in a manner

not inconsistent with the provisions of SLUSA.

Accordingly, it is:

ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that Plaintiffs’ Motion

to Dismiss Without Prejudice (Doc. No. 8) is GRANTED, and

that all counts and claims in the Complaint herein are

DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants’ Motion for

Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 5) and Motion for

Stay of Requirements Under Rule 26(f) Order (Doc. No. 6)

are rendered MOOT.

DONE, this the 12th day of December, 2007.

 /s/ Myron H. Thompson 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:07-cv-00664-MHT-SRW Document 18 Filed 12/12/07 Page 3 of 3