unnamed class members are "opposing parties.” See Selby v. Principal Mut. Life Ins. Co., No. 98 CIV 5283, 2000 WL 1863760, at :í7 (S.D.N.Y. Dec.20, 2000). 32 . See Section 11(B) (Phase 1) (Step 6) supra. 33 . This section of the Restatement was quoted by the Supreme Court in defining “materiality” in the federal mail fraud statute. Neder, 527 U.S. at 22 n. 5, 119 S.Ct. 1827. The Court further held that "a false statement is material if it has a natural tendency to influence, or [is] capable of influencing the decision of the decision making body to which it was addressed.” Id. at 16, 119 S.Ct. 1827 (quoting Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 770, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988)). 34 . See, e.g., Davister Corp. v. United Republic Life Ins. Co., 152 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>); Munich Am. Reinsurance Co. v. Crawford, 141
holding that the gentry ruleruns afoul of the faa and is thus preempted holding that the plaintiffs state law claims are preempted by federal law holding the state law claims were not preempted holding faa reverse preempted by state statute under mccarranferguson holding faa reverse preempted by state statute under mccarranf erguson