Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Jackson et al
Order GRANTING Dft Metropolitan Life Insurance Company's 32 Motion for Leave to Interplead Funds. Within 30 days after the date of this Order, MetLife is to deposit benefit funds of $59,500.00, plus any applicable interest due under the terms of the Plan, into the Registry of the Court for subsequent disbursement to one or more of the interpleader dfts in accordance w/the judgment of this Court. The Clerk is DIRECTED to DISMISS MetLife from this action W/PREJUDICE & discharge it, C hrysler, & the Plan from liability as to any claims relating to the Plan. The interpleader dfts are permanently enjoined from instituting or prosecuting any other action or proceeding against in any state or United States court against MetLife or an y subsidiary or related companies, Chrysler, or the Plan, for the recovery of the Plan benefits. MetLife is entitled to recover reasonable attnys' fees & disbursements expended in this matter. Following the interpleader of the funds, MetLife is to file appropriate proof of its attny fees & disbursements. Signed by Senior Judge Callie V. S. Granade on 12/21/2016. (copies mailed to Dfts M. Burrell & S. Burrell on 12/22/16) (tot) Modified on 12/22/2016 (tot).
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
STORMEY D. BURROUGHS
MARCIA L. BURRELL,
SHERITA N. BURRELL and
ANDREWS FUNERAL HOME,
Civil Case No.: 1:16-cv-00411
This matter is before the Court on Interpleader Plaintiff,
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company’s (“MetLife”) “Motion for Leave to
Interplead Funds.” (Doc. 32). Having considered the motion, the Court
finds as follows:
MetLife filed an interpleader complaint because Defendants
made conflicting claims for the life benefits of Decedent Edward Burrell
under the Chrysler Basic Life Insurance Plan, an ERISA-regulated
employee benefit plan sponsored by Chrysler and funded by a group life
insurance policy issued by MetLife (the “Plan”).
MetLife has now filed a motion to interplead the Plan
benefits into an interest bearing account with the Court.
MetLife’s Motion for Leave to Interplead Funds (Doc. 32) is
GRANTED and MetLife is ORDERED, within thirty days after the
date of this Order, to deposit into the Registry of the Court benefit
funds in the amount of Fifty-Nine Thousand and Five Hundred Dollars
($59,500.00), plus any applicable interest due under the terms of the
Plan, for subsequent disbursement to one or more of the interpleader
defendants in accordance with the judgment of this Court.
The Court finds that no parties to this lawsuit have any
additional cognizable claims for the Plan benefits at issue against
MetLife, Chrysler, or the Plan. Therefore, upon MetLife’s payment of
the aforementioned Plan benefits into the Registry of this court, the
Court DIRECTS the Clerk of the Court to DISMISS MetLife from this
action WITH PREJUDICE and discharge it, Chrysler, and the Plan
from liability as to any claims relating to the Plan. The Court also
permanently restrains and enjoins the interpleader defendants,
Stormey D. Burroughs Jackson, Marcia L. Burrell, Sherita N. Burrell
and Andrews Funeral Home, from instituting or prosecuting any other
action or proceeding in any state or United States court against MetLife
or any subsidiary or related companies, Chrysler, or the Plan, for the
recovery of the Plan benefits.
Finding no just reason for delay, the dismissal of MetLife
shall be final pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The underlying action
will continue between the interpleader Defendants.
The Court also finds that MetLife is entitled to recover its
reasonable attorneys’ fees and disbursements expended in this matter
and that such attorneys’ fees and disbursements shall be paid from the
interpleader funds. Following the interpleader of the aforementioned
funds, MetLife shall file appropriate proof of its attorney fees and
DONE and ORDERED this 21st day of December, 2016.
/s/ Callie V. S. Granade
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?