2005 Decisions

Opinions of the United

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Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential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

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.

Recommended Citation

"Sabo v. Metro Life Ins Co" (2005). 2005 Decisions. Paper 882.

http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2005/882
NOT PRECEDENTIAL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;
2

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)
3

___________

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.

_________________________