N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT In re : ALLSTATE LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY LITIGATION,

------------------------------ ALLSTATE LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY; W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, N.A., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. R OB ER T W . B AIRD & C O. INC ORPOR

ATED; SOUTHW EST SEC UR ITIES, INC . , Suc c e ssor-in-Inte re st to M . L. Ste rn & C o., LLC ; EDWARD D. JONES & C O., L.P., DB A Edwa rd Jone s, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts, v. KUTAK R OC K, LLP,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-16760 D.C . Nos. 3:09-c v-08162-GM S

3:09-c v-08174-GM S M EM O R ANDUM * 

# FIL ED

NOV 21 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S . CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.In re : ALLSTATE LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY LITIGATION,

------------------------------ ALLSTATE LIFE INSUR ANC E C OM PANY; W ELLS FAR GO B ANK, N.A., Pla i ntiffs-Appe lle e s, v. R OB ER T W . B AIRD & C O. INC ORPOR

ATED; SOUTHW EST SEC UR ITIES, INC . , Suc c e ssor-in-Inte re st to M . L. Ste rn & C o., LLC ; EDWARD D. JONES & C O., L.P., DB A Edwa rd Jone s, De fe nda n ts-Appe lla

nts, v. STINSON LEONAR

D STREET LLP, FKA Stinson M orrison He c ke r LLP,

De fe nda n t-Appe l le e . No. 14-16789 D.C . Nos. 3:09-c v-08162-GM S

3:09-c v-08174-GM S

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of Ariz o na G . M urray

Snow, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d and Subm i tte d Nove m

be r 15, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia

2B e fore : THOM AS, C hie f Judge , FR IEDLAND, C irc uit Judge , a nd EZR A, ** Distric t Judge . R obe rt W . B a ird & C o. a

nd Hilltop Se c uritie s, Inc . a ppe a l the distric t c ourt’ s a pprova l of two ba

r orde rs issue d with these ttle m e nt a gre e m e nts in this c onsolida te d se c uritie s fra

ud a c tion. “ Ordina

rily , we re vie wthe distric t c ourt’ s de c ision to a

p prove a se ttle m e nt for a

buse of disc re tion.” In reHe r itage Bond Litig. , 546 F.3d 667, 675 (9th C ir. 2008). B ut a ppe lla nts c ha lle n ge the distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of “ the PSLR A to de te rm ine the pe rm issiblesc ope of a ba r orde r issue d pursua

n t to [tha t] sta tute [] .” Id. “ The distric t c ourt’ s inte rpre tation of a sta tute is a que stion of la

w tha t we re vie w de novo.” Id. (quoting Be e man v . TDI Manage d C

areSe rv s. , 449 F.3d 1035, 1038 (9th C ir. 2006)). W e a ffirm . In He ritage

Bond, we de fine d the pe rm i ssible sc ope of ba r orde rs in se c uritie s litiga

tion in this C irc uit. W e he ld tha t ba r orde rs issue d pursua

nt to the Privat e Se c uritie s Litiga

tion R e form

Ac t (“ PSLR

A” ), 15 U.S.C . § 78u–4, “m ay only ba r c la im s for c ontribution a nd inde m nity or disguise d c la im s for suc h re lie f.” 546 F.3d a

t 671. Furthe rm ore , we he ld tha t “ [i] n de pe n de nt c l a im s— those whe re the i njury is not the non-se ttling de fe nda

nt’ s lia bility to the pla intiff—

m ay not be ba rre d” unde r fe de ra l la

w . Id.

* * The Honora

ble David A. Ezra , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the Distric t of Ha

wa ii, sitting by de signa

tion. 3He re , the distric t c ourt e n te re d ba r orde rs e ntire ly

c onsiste n t with tha

t holding, e a c h

of whic h “ c om

ple te ly and pe rm ane ntly

ba rs, e njoins, re stra i ns a

nd e xtinguishe s a

ny and a ll c la i m s in a

ny sta te or fe de ra l jurisdic tion or a ny othe r forum . . . for (i) c ontribution; (ii) inde m nific at ion; or (iii) a

ny othe r c la i m

for

‘ d isguise d c ontribution or inde m nific ation’ unde r a

pplic a ble la w. . . .” The distric t c ourt’ s inc lusion of a

pa re n the t ic a l listing c a

u se s of a c tions tha

t m ight be de e m e d

“ disguise d c ontribution or inde m nific ation” c la im s wa s not c o ntra ry to He ritage Bond . R a the r, it sim

p l y illustra te d, c onsiste nt with the He ritage Bond rule , tha t the ba r orde r would pre c l ude any and a ll “ disguise d c la im s” for c ontribution or inde m nity , howe ve r de nom inate d. De te rm ining whe the r a c la im is truly inde pe nde nt or a c tua lly

disguise d— and thus ba

rre d by the distric t c ourt’ s orde r— i s an inquiry

prope rly le ft to the c ourt re vie wing the c la im s. Se e He ritage Bond, 546 F.3d at 682 (holding tha

t “ the que stion of inde

pe nde nc e should bede c ide d by the c ourt whe re the c la im s we re brought” ). To the e xte nt the pa

rtie s inviteus to opine

on the a p plic a bility of the ba

r orde r to a ny pa rtic ula r c la i m , we de c line the invita tion. To do othe

rwise would be to providean im

pe rm issiblea dvisory

opinion. Se e Golde n v . Zw ic k le r , 394 U.S. 103, 108 (1969).

4AFFIRM E D.

5