This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P filed a class action lawsuit against D for the sale of fixed deferred annuities. P alleges that he was 'sold an unsuitable financial product' because the maturity date exceeded his life expectancy and restricted his access to principal without surrender charges. P asserts claims for violations of RICO, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, and violation of California statutes. The district court certified a nationwide class on the RICO claims only and a California-purchaser-only class as to the California statutory claims. Several similar cases have been filed in various federal and state courts; Iorio, Mooney, Castello, and the Minnesota Attorney General. Those groups eventually got together to discuss settlement. P was neither informed of nor included. P learned of the negotiations and contacted D and requested assurances that: any settlement negotiations or mediation in the referenced cases will not address any of the claims or damages asserted on behalf of the P class, that any proposed settlement reached as a result of those negotiations will not compromise, impair, prejudice or affect the claims of the P class members, and that any proposed settlement class will expressly exclude all members of the P class. D said no, and P sought an ex parte order and the district court, without holding a hearing, issued an order nominally denying the application because it was 'not authorized by the All Writs Act.' The court sill ordered that any proposed settlement that resolves, in whole or in part, the claims brought in this action shall first be subject to review and approval by the Court in this litigation. D appealed.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.