Davis v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al
Filing
44
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Accordingly, as set out in the 37 Order, Met Life is DISCHARGED from further liability with respect to the disputed funds, and Evelyn H. Davis, Johnson Mack Davis, Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc., and all persons an d entities claiming through them are ENJOINED from instituting any action in any state or United States court against Met Life on any claim arising out of or relating to the funds at issue; Second, it is ORDERED that all claims against Met Life are D ISMISSED with prejudice and that Met Life is DISMISSED as a party to this lawsuit; Third, for clarification, what remains is a rare federal-question, rule-interpleader action in which Evelyn H. Davis, Johnson Mack Davis, and Battle & Battle Funeral H ome, Inc., must litigate or settle their claims for the Policy benefits, as further set out in order; Fourth, the parties must be realigned according to their respective interests now that Met Life has been discharged of its liability and dismissed, as further set out in order; it is ORDERED that the parties are REALIGNED as set out herein and in the caption above; DIRECTING the Clerk to amend the docket to reflect the change in the style of this case; Any objection to the realignment of the par ties must be filed on or before 2/19/2016; Fifth, the pleadings themselves also need to be pared down and restyled, as further set out in order; it is ORDERED that the following pleadings are stricken as redundant in light of the federal interpleader action that will resolve the present dispute: (1) Evelyn H. Davis's Complaint (Doc. # 1 -3); (2) Met Life's Answer to the Complaint (Doc. # 3 ); (3) Johnson Mack Davis's Answer to the Complaint (Doc. # 11 ); (4) Evelyn H. Davis 9;s Amended Complaint (Doc. # 40 ); (5) Met Life's Third-Party Complaint in Interpleader (Doc. # 3 ); and (6) Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc.'s Answer to Met Life's Third-Party Complaint (Doc. # 15 ); further ORDERED that the ope rative pleadings are as follows: (1) the Interpleader Counterclaim (Doc. # 3 ), which is restyled as the Interpleader Complaint; (2) Johnson Mack Davis's Answer to the Interpleader Counterclaim (Doc. # 11 ), which is restyled as an Answer to t he Interpleader Complaint; and (3) Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc.'s Cross-Claim (Doc. # 15 ), which is restyled as a Third-Party Complaint against Evelyn H. Davis and Johnson Mack Davis; DIRECTING the Clerk to restyle the pleadings in accor dance with this Order; Sixth, on or before 2/22/2016, Evelyn H. Davis is DIRECTED to file a "Response to this Order Setting Out a Statement of her Claim to the Res," as further set out in order; Seventh, Evelyn H. Davis and Johnson Mack Dav is are DIRECTED to file Answers to Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc.'s Third-Party Complaint (Doc. # 15 ) on or before 2/22/2016. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 2/12/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
EVELYN H. DAVIS,
Plaintiff,
v.
JOHNSON MACK DAVIS,
)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 3:15-CV-003-WKW
)
)
)
)
Defendant.
_________________________________
BATTLE & BATTLE FUNERAL
)
HOME, INC.,
)
)
Third-Party Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
EVELYN H. DAVIS, and
)
JOHNSON MACK DAVIS,
)
)
Third-Party Defendants.
)
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
This action is in need of a deep house cleaning. A brief account of the
procedural history will reveal why.
This lawsuit originated in the Circuit Court of Macon County, Alabama.
Plaintiff Evelyn H. Davis’s husband (L. A. Davis), who is now deceased, was
insured under a group life insurance policy (“Policy”) through his employer,
General Motors. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Met Life”) administered
the Policy under which Mr. Davis had life insurance coverage of approximately
$71,000. Mr. Davis died on April 13, 2014. Upon Mr. Davis’s death, the life
benefits under the Policy became payable to the proper beneficiary, and the lawsuit
involves a dispute as to whether Evelyn H. Davis or Mr. Davis’s brother (Johnson
Mack Davis) is the proper beneficiary under the Policy.
Evelyn H. Davis’s Complaint was framed as a state-law declaratory
judgment action against Met Life and Johnson Mack Davis, but Met Life removed
the action to the Middle District of Alabama on the basis of complete preemption
under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29
U.S.C. §§ 1001–1461. Evelyn H. Davis did not dispute ERISA’s application, and
the court directed her to file an Amended Complaint to allege a claim under
ERISA, and Plaintiff complied.
In the meantime, Met Life filed an Answer to the Complaint, an Interpleader
Counterclaim against Evelyn H. Davis (invoking ERISA as the jurisdictional
basis), and a Third-Party Complaint in Interpleader against Johnson Mack Davis
and Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc., which performed the burial services for L.
A. Davis and to which Evelyn H. Davis allegedly assigned a portion of the Policy
benefits to pay for the services. (Doc. # 3.) Met Life also filed a motion for leave
to interplead funds, for dismissal, and for injunctive relief, which the court granted
conditionally. (Docs. # 19, 37.)
2
Johnson Mack Davis filed an Answer to Evelyn H. Davis’s Complaint and
Met Life’s Interpleader Counterclaim. (Doc. # 11.) Battle & Battle Funeral Home,
Inc., filed an Answer to the Complaint and Cross-Claims against Evelyn H. Davis
and Johnson Mack Davis. (Doc. # 15.) Evelyn H. Davis has not filed an Answer
to the Interpleader Counterclaim, and she and Johnson Mack Davis have not filed
Answers to Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc.’s claims against them. With the
dust and cobwebs exposed, here comes the house cleaning.
First, on October 30, 2015, as stated, the court conditionally granted Met
Life’s unopposed motion for leave to interplead funds. (Doc. # 37.) On December
17, 2015, Met Life deposited the funds into the court’s registry. (Doc. # 43.)
Accordingly, as set out in the October 30, 2015 Order (Doc. # 37), Met Life is
DISCHARGED from further liability with respect to the disputed funds, and
Evelyn H. Davis, Johnson Mack Davis, Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc., and all
persons and entities claiming through them are ENJOINED from instituting any
action in any state or United States court against Met Life on any claim arising out
of or relating to the funds at issue.
Second, it is ORDERED that all claims against Met Life are DISMISSED
with prejudice and that Met Life is DISMISSED as a party to this lawsuit.
Third, for clarification, what remains is a rare federal-question, ruleinterpleader action in which Evelyn H. Davis, Johnson Mack Davis, and Battle &
3
Battle Funeral Home, Inc., must litigate or settle their claims for the Policy
benefits. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 22; 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v.
Price, 501 F.3d 271, 275–76 (3d Cir. 2007) (observing that “[a] federal question
interpleader is a rarity,” id. at 275, but that “courts of appeals have recognized that
an interpleader ‘arises under’ federal law when brought by an ERISA fiduciary
against competing claimants to plan benefits,” id. at 276 (collecting cases)).
Fourth, the parties must be realigned according to their respective interests
now that Met Life has been discharged of its liability and dismissed. See City of
Vestavia Hills v. Gen. Fid. Ins. Co., 676 F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 2012) (noting
that “federal courts are required to realign the parties in an action to reflect their
interests in the litigation”). There is a dispute between Evelyn H. Davis and
Johnson Mack Davis as to who is the lawful beneficiary of the deceased’s life
insurance policy. As to this dispute, Evelyn H. Davis properly is aligned as a
plaintiff and Johnson Mack Davis as a defendant. Battle & Battle Funeral Home,
Inc., in turn, contends that, through a contractual assignment or equity, it is entitled
to $7,751.00 of the interpleaded funds for the funeral expenses no matter which
party—Evelyn H. Davis or Johnson Mack Davis—is deemed the lawful
beneficiary. Under these factual circumstances, Battle & Battle Funeral Home,
Inc., is best situated as a third-party plaintiff and Evelyn H. Davis and Johnson
Mack Davis as third-party defendants. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the
4
parties are REALIGNED as set out herein and in the caption above. The Clerk of
the Court is DIRECTED to amend the docket to reflect the change in the style of
this case. Any objection to the realignment of the parties must be filed on or
before February 19, 2016.
Fifth, the pleadings themselves also need to be pared down and restyled. See
7 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary Kay Kane, Federal Practice &
Procedure § 1715 (3d ed. 2001) (“The usual rules of pleading are applicable to an
interpleader action, as are the principles calling for the liberal construction of the
pleadings and treating mislabeled pleadings according to their substance.”).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the following pleadings are stricken as
redundant in light of the federal interpleader action that will resolve the present
dispute: (1) Evelyn H. Davis’s Complaint (Doc. # 1-3); (2) Met Life’s Answer to
the Complaint (Doc. # 3); (3) Johnson Mack Davis’s Answer to the Complaint
(Doc. # 11); (4) Evelyn H. Davis’s Amended Complaint (Doc. # 40); (5) Met
Life’s Third-Party Complaint in Interpleader (Doc. # 3); and (6) Battle & Battle
Funeral Home, Inc.’s Answer to Met Life’s Third-Party Complaint (Doc. # 15).
It is further ORDERED that the operative pleadings are as follows: (1) the
Interpleader Counterclaim (Doc. # 3), which is restyled as the Interpleader
Complaint; (2) Johnson Mack Davis’s Answer to the Interpleader Counterclaim
(Doc. # 11), which is restyled as an Answer to the Interpleader Complaint; and
5
(3) Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc.’s Cross-Claim (Doc. # 15), which is
restyled as a Third-Party Complaint against Evelyn H. Davis and Johnson Mack
Davis.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to restyle the pleadings in
accordance with this Order.
Sixth, on or before February 22, 2016, Evelyn H. Davis is DIRECTED to
file a “Response to this Order Setting Out a Statement of her Claim to the Res,”
which clearly sets forth her basis for claiming entitlement to the insurance
proceeds and her opposition to Johnson Mack Davis’s claim. See generally Aetna
Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ahrens, 414 F. Supp. 1235, 1249 (S.D. Tex. 1975) (“Each
claimant will file an answer setting out a statement of his claim to the res (the
‘fund’) in contest, an answer to the claim of his opponent, if appropriate. . . .”).
Seventh, Evelyn H. Davis and Johnson Mack Davis are DIRECTED to file
Answers to Battle & Battle Funeral Home, Inc.’s Third-Party Complaint (Doc.
# 15) on or before February 22, 2016.
DONE this 12th day of February, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?