Trustees of the ILWU-PMA Pension Plan v. Coates et al

Filing 76

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 67 Plaintiffs' Motion for Default Judgment. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2013)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8

TRUSTEES OF THE ILWU-PMA PENSION
PLAN,

No. C-11-3998 EMC

9
Plaintiffs,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’
MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT

v.
11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

(Docket No. 67)
PAMELA COATES, et al.,

12
13

Defendants.
___________________________________/

14
15
16
17

I.

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs the Trustees of the ILWU-PMA1 Pension Plan (“the Trustees”) have brought an

18

interpleader action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 to resolve conflicting claims to decedent James A.

19

Taylor’s ILWU-PMA Pension Plan Survivor Pension benefits (“the Benefits”). See Complaint in

20

Interpleader (Docket No. 1). In the instant Motion for Default Judgment (Docket No. 67), the

21

Trustees apply to this Court for an order entering default judgment against Defendant Mary Taylor

22

based on her failure to appear or otherwise respond to Plaintiffs’ complaint within the time

23

prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Trustees also request that this Court enjoin

24

the Defendant from initiating any further legal action regarding her entitlement to the Benefits.

25

Having considered Plaintiffs’ briefs and accompanying submissions, as well as the oral argument of

26

counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for the reasons discussed herein.

27
28

1

ILWU-PMA is an abbreviation for the International Longshore and Warehouse Union and
the Pacific Maritime Association, both of whom sponsor the ILWU-PMA Pension Plan.

1
2

II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

The Trustees are the named fiduciaries and designated administrators of the ILWU-PMA

3

Pension Plan (“the Plan”), an employee benefit plan governed by the Employee Retirement Income

4

Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. §§ 1001, et. seq. Compl. ¶¶ 3-4. Decedent James A.

5

Taylor was a Plan participant who began receiving monthly benefits from the Plan when he retired

6

on November 1, 2003, until his death on November 15, 2009. Id. ¶¶ 6, 29. The Plan provides that

7

upon the death of a plan participant, the “surviving spouse [as defined by the Plan] will receive a

8

monthly Survivor Pension benefit for the remainder of the surviving spouse’s life.” Id. ¶ 37. At the

9

time this suit was filed, the amount of plan benefits payable to the surviving spouse equaled

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

$2,299.27 per month. Id. ¶ 39.
Plaintiffs’ complaint does not indicate that the pension plan documents record the identity of

12

the decedent’s spouse. However, records associated with a separate employee benefit plan

13

sponsored by the ILWU and PMA do. Mr. Taylor was also a participant in the ILWU-PMA Welfare

14

Plan (“Welfare Plan”), “a separate ERISA plan providing hospital, medical, and other benefits to

15

longshore workers and their dependents.” Comp. ¶ 14. “Under the Welfare Plan, longshore workers

16

designate their dependants, including dependent spouses, as eligible for Welfare Plan coverage by

17

submitting a ‘Record Change Form’ or a ‘Dependent Verification Form.’” Id. ¶ 15. Plaintiffs,

18

through the ILWU-PMA Benefit Plan Office, received a total of 11 such forms from the decedent

19

over the course of his participation in the two plans. See id. ¶¶ 13-30. These forms identify five

20

separate individuals as the decedent’s spouse. Plaintiffs have named each of these five individuals

21

as a defendant in this action “on information and belief that [each] may have an interest in the

22

benefits at issue.” Id. ¶¶ 9-11.

23

Defendant Laversa Pier, a resident of San Francisco, California, was married to James Taylor

24

from October 11, 1980, until the dissolution of their marriage on a date before November 12, 1982.

25

Compl. ¶ 9. Defendant Jennifer Taylor, a resident of Brentwood, California, was married to James

26

Taylor on October 10, 1982. Id. ¶ 7. Jennifer Taylor was deleted as a dependent spouse by the

27

decedent on a Record Change Form filed on January 18, 1984. Id. ¶ 21. Defendant Mary Taylor,

28

whose residence is unknown, was married to James Taylor around January 1984 until the dissolution

2

1

of their marriage around February 1985. Id. ¶ 10. Defendant Sheryl Perdue, a resident of Lithonia,

2

Georgia, was married to James Taylor from November 30, 1985, until the dissolution of their

3

marriage on October 31, 1989. Id. ¶ 11. Defendant Pamela Coates, a resident of San Francisco,

4

California, married James Taylor on August 6, 1999. Id. ¶ 8. At the time of his retirement, James

5

Taylor indicated to the ILWU-PMA Benefit Plan Office that Pamela Coates was his legal spouse.

6

Id. ¶ 29. On February 4, 2009, Mr. Taylor filed a “Dependent Verification Form” deleting Pamela

7

Coates as a dependent spouse, and when he died later that year, Mr. Taylor’s death certificate stated

8

that his marital status was “widowed.” Id. ¶¶ 30-31.

9

In January 2010, approximately two months after the decedent’s death, Pamela Coates and
Jennifer Taylor each submitted an “Application for Survivor Pension” on account of their marriage

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

to James Taylor. Compl. ¶¶ 32-33. At the request of the ILWU-PMA Benefit Plan Office, both

12

defendants separately submitted copies of their marriage certificates and letters from California

13

Superior Courts for the Counties of Alameda, San Francisco, and Contra Costa, stating that no

14

record of the dissolution of either of their marriages exists. Id. ¶¶ 34-36. “Because of the

15

conflicting information regarding the overlapping dates of marriage between James A. Taylor and

16

the five Defendants,” Plaintiffs state they “cannot determine whether and to what extent

17

Defendants” are entitled to Mr. Taylor’s Survivor Pension benefits. Id. ¶ 38.

18
19

III.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In an effort to resolve these conflicting claims to the Benefits, the Trustees filed this

20

interpleader2 action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22, naming James Taylor’s alleged spouses and former

21

spouses as defendants. Compl. at 2. As a general rule, after properly effecting service of process in

22

an interpleader action, “[a] named interpleader defendant who fails to answer the interpleader

23
24
25
26
27
28

2

Interpleader allows a party “subjected to conflicting claims by two or more persons
growing out of a single obligation” to “put the money or other property in dispute into court,
withdraw from the proceeding, and leave the claimants to litigate between themselves the ownership
of the fund in court.” Zechariah Chafee, Jr., The Federal Interpleader Act of 1936: I, 45 Yale L.J.
963, 963 (1936). Interpleader exists primarily for the benefit and protection of the party subject to
multiple claims, allowing them to avoid the “burden of unnecessary litigation or the risk of loss by
the establishment of multiple liability when only a single obligation is owing.” State of Texas v.
State of Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 412 (1939). See also Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 1030,
1034 (9th Cir. 2000).

3

1

complaint and assert a claim to the res forfeits any claim of entitlement that might have been

2

asserted.” Sun Life Assur. Co. of Canada, (U.S.) v. Conroy, 431 F. Supp. 2d 220, 226 (D.R.I. 2006).

3

Pamela Coates was served with a summons and copy of the complaint on September 6, 2011, and

4

filed a timely answer to the complaint on September 30, 2011. See Docket Nos. 9, 10. Of the five

5

defendants, Ms. Coates is the only one who has answered Plaintiffs’ interpleader action.

6

Jennifer Taylor was served on August 29, 2011. See Docket No. 11. The Trustees allege

7

that a person representing herself as Jennifer Taylor had a telephone conversation with Plaintiffs’

8

counsel on September 2, 2011, to inquire about the summons and complaint she received.

9

Declaration of Lindsay Nicholas (“Nicholas Decl.”) (Docket No. 39) ¶ 6. Laversa Pier was served
on September 19, 2011. See Docket. No. 12. The Trustees allege that Laversa Pier contacted

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Plaintiffs’ counsel on September 20, 2011, to indicate that she had no interest in claiming the

12

Benefits on account of her marriage to James Taylor. Nicholas Decl. ¶ 11. Other than these brief

13

interactions with Plaintiffs’ counsel, neither Ms. Pier nor Ms. Taylor filed a response to the

14

complaint or otherwise entered an appearance in this action. The Trustees moved for entry of

15

default against these two defendants, which the Clerk entered on November 17, 2011. See Docket

16

No. 19.

17

After unsuccessful attempts to locate defendants Mary Taylor and Sheryl Perdue via searches

18

of three electronic databases, Plaintiffs moved for permission to serve Mary Taylor and Sheryl

19

Perdue by publication. See Pl.’s Motion to Serve by Publication (Docket No. 23). The Court

20

granted the motion, and the Plaintiffs published summons for Mary Taylor in the San Francisco-

21

based publications The Recorder and the San Francisco Chronicle. See Docket Nos. 26, 29. The

22

Trustees published summons for Sheryl Perdue in the The Recorder, the San Francisco Chronicle,

23

and the Atlanta-based publication the Daily Report. See Docket Nos. 25, 27-28. After Ms. Taylor

24

and Ms. Perdue failed to file a timely answer or otherwise appear, the Clerk entered default against

25

Mary Taylor on June 22, 2012, and against Sheryl Perdue on July 2, 2012. See Docket Nos. 46, 49.

26

The Plaintiffs thereafter filed a Motion for Default Judgment against all four defendants on

27

the grounds that none of them had timely filed an answer or otherwise appeared in this action. See

28

Docket No. 37. Magistrate Judge Cousins heard the motion and filed a report and recommendation

4

1

in favor of entering default judgment against all four defendants. See Docket No. 50. This Court

2

adopted in part Judge Cousins’ report and recommendation, and granted Plaintiffs’ motion against

3

Jennifer Taylor, Laversa Pier, and Sheryl Perdue, enjoining them from “pursuing further action in

4

state or federal court regarding any claim to the benefits at issue.” Order Adopting in Part Report

5

and Recommendation (“Order”) (Docket No. 56) at 1. As to Defendant Mary Taylor, however, the

6

Court voiced “concerns that a default judgment against her may be premature.” Id. Plaintiffs’

7

database searches for Mary Taylor identified “hundreds of individuals with this name, none of

8

whom have a birth date that matches the Welfare Plan’s records.” Pl.’s Motion to Serve by

9

Publication at 3. The Court reasoned that, since the “complaint does not allege Mary Taylor resides
in the San Francisco Bay Area,” nationwide publication “would be more reasonably calculated to

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

reach Ms. Taylor.” Order at 2. It, therefore, denied Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default judgment,

12

but granted “leave of the Court to publish summons as to Mary Taylor via a nationwide publication

13

and, assuming she makes no appearance thereafter, seek a default judgment.” Id.

14

Following the Court’s ruling, the Plaintiffs published summons for Mary Taylor in the

15

Washington, D.C.-based publication The Washington Post. See Docket No. 63. After Mary Taylor

16

failed to file a timely answer or otherwise appear, the Clerk entered default against her on December

17

20, 2012. See Docket No. 66. The Plaintiffs thereafter brought their instant motion for entry of

18

default judgment against Mary Taylor. Docket No. 67. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’

19

motion on February 7, 2013, at which Defendant Mary Taylor failed to appear.

20
21

IV.
A.

22

DISCUSSION

Jurisdiction
In considering whether to enter a default judgment, a district court first must determine

23

whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the parties to the case. See In re Tuli, 172

24

F.3d 707, 712 (9th Cir. 1999) (“When entry of judgment is sought against a party who has failed to

25

plead or otherwise defend, a district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction over

26

both the subject matter and the parties.”).

27

///

28

///

5

1

1.

2

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this ERISA case under 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(1).3

Subject Matter Jurisdiction

3

ERISA permits fiduciaries and plan administrators to obtain equitable relief to enforce any

4

provisions of the terms of an ERISA-governed plan. See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3). The Ninth Circuit

5

has held that such “equitable relief” includes interpleader actions that seek to determine the rightful

6

beneficiaries to the proceeds of an ERISA covered plan in the face of multiple conflicting claimants.

7

Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2000).

8

2.

9

To enter default judgment, the Court must also have a basis for the exercise of personal

Personal Jurisdiction

jurisdiction over the defaulting defendant. See Tuli, 172 F.3d at 712 (“A judgment entered without

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

personal jurisdiction over the parties is void.”). Under ERISA, fiduciaries may bring an

12

enforcement action in the federal district court of any district “where the plan is administered, where

13

the breach took place, or where a defendant resides or may be found, and process may be served in

14

any other district where a defendant resides or may be found.” 29 U.S.C. § 1132(e)(2). Under this

15

nationwide service of process provision, a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant

16

anywhere in the United States, regardless of the state in which the court sits. Vivien v. Worldcom,

17

Inc., No. 02-cv-01329 WHA, 2002 WL 31640557, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 26, 2002); see also

18

Denny’s, Inc. v. Cake, 364 F.3d 521, 524 (4th Cir. 2004) (holding that a federal district court in

19

South Carolina could exercise personal jurisdiction over the California Labor Commissioner because

20

the ERISA plan was administered in South Carolina, the Commissioner had been served in

21

California, and the action was a proper ERISA enforcement action).

22

In this case, the Plaintiffs have brought an ERISA enforcement action under 29 U.S.C. §

23

1132(a)(3) in an effort to “enforce the terms of the Pension Plan,” that is, to determine “to whom the

24

Survivor Pension benefits payable on account of James A. Taylor . . . are to be paid.” Compl. at 2.

25

The complaint does not allege Mary Taylor’s state of residence, but under ERISA’s nationwide

26
3

27
28

Section 1132(e)(1) provides “[e]xcept for actions under subsection (a)(1)(B) of this section
[inapplicable here], the district courts of the United States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil
actions under this subchapter brought by the Secretary or by a participant, beneficiary, fiduciary, or
any person referred to in section 1021(f)(1) of this title.”

6

1

service of process provision, this Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over her even if she does

2

not reside in this judicial district. See Vivien, 2002 WL 31640557 at *2. Mary Taylor presumably

3

falls within ERISA’s nationwide service of process provision as long as she is a resident of the

4

United States. See Combs v. Doe, No. 10-cv-01120 HRL, 2011 WL 738052, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb.

5

23, 2011) (recommending that default judgment be entered against a defendant whose identity and

6

location are unknown). The Court has been given no reason to believe that she is not. Thus, the

7

Court has a basis for exercising personal jurisdiction over Mary Taylor in order to grant default

8

judgment against her.

9

B.

Default Judgment
1.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

As a threshold matter in considering a motion for default judgment, the Court must first

12

“assess the adequacy of the service of process on the party against whom default is requested.”

13

Board of Trustees of the N. Cal. Sheet Metal Workers v. Peters, No. C-00-0395 VRW, 2000 U.S.

14

Dist. LEXIS 19065, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 2, 2001). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(e) provides

15

that “an individual . . . may be served in a judicial district of the United States by . . . following state

16

law for serving a summons in an action brought in courts of general jurisdiction in the state where

17

the district court is located . . . .” California law allows for service by publication if the party to be

18

served “cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner,” and is a “necessary or

19

proper party to the action” or “has or claims an interest in real or personal property in this state that

20

is subject to the jurisdiction of the court or the relief demanded in the action.” Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §

21

415.50(a). In order to effectuate service by publication, a party must publish the summons “in a

22

named newspaper, published in this state, that is most likely to give actual notice to the party to be

23

served.” Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 415.50(b). “If the party to be served resides or is located out of this

24

state, the court may also order the summons to be published in a named newspaper outside this state

25

that is most likely to give actual notice to that party.” Id. California law also specifies that service

26

by publication will be satisfied on the twenty-eighth day following the first date of publication, with

27

the summons being published at least once a week for four consecutive weeks, with at least five days

28

intervening between the publication dates. See California Government Code § 6064.

Adequacy of Service of Process

7

1

Here, the Plaintiffs have satisfied all requirements for effectuating service on Defendant

2

Mary Taylor by publication. After unsuccessful attempts to locate Mary Taylor via searches of three

3

electronic databases, Plaintiffs published summons for her in The Recorder and the San Francisco

4

Chronicle. See Docket Nos. 26, 29. Following this Court’s Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion for

5

entry of default judgment, and in an effort to effectuate service on the Defendant by national

6

publication, Plaintiffs published summons for Mary Taylor in The Washington Post. See Docket

7

Nos. 62, 63. Plaintiffs’ declaration accompanying the instant motion (Declaration of Lindsay

8

Nicholas, Docket No. 69), and their Proof of Publication (Docket No. 63), reflect that they have

9

satisfied the requirements of California Government Code § 6064. Through national publication of
the summons, Plaintiffs have discharged their duty to exercise “reasonable diligence” in effecting

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

alternate service in a manner most likely to give actual notice to Mary Taylor of this action, as

12

required by Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 415.50. Thus, the record contains sufficient evidence to conclude

13

that Mary Taylor has been properly served and noticed of this action as required by Fed. R. Civ. P 4

14

and the California Code of Civil Procedure.

15

2.

16

After the entry of default, a court may grant default judgment on the merits of a case. See

Merits of Motion for Default Judgment

17

Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2). “The district court’s decision whether to enter a default judgment is a

18

discretionary one.” Aldabe v. Aldabe, 616 F.2d 1089, 1092 (9th Cir. 1980). Factors that a court may

19

consider in exercising that discretion include:

20
21
22

(1) the possibility of prejudice to the plaintiff; (2) the merits of
plaintiff’s substantive claim, (3) the sufficiency of the complaint, (4)
the sum of money at stake in the action, (5) the possibility of a dispute
concerning material facts, (6) whether the default was due to
excusable neglect, and (7) the strong policy underlying the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure favoring decisions on the merits.

23
24

Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d 1470, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1986). Because default has already been entered

25

in this case, the Court must construe as true all factual allegations in Plaintiffs’ complaint except for

26

those related to the amount of damages. See Televideo Sys., Inc. v. Heidenthal, 826 F.2d 915, 917-

27

18 (9th Cir. 1987). See also Geddes v. United Fin. Grp., 559 F.2d 557, 560 (9th Cir. 1977) (holding

28

that at the default judgment stage, the factual allegations of the complaint, except those concerning

8

1

damages, are deemed admitted by the non-responding parties). Facts not contained in the pleadings

2

and claims which are legally insufficient, however, are not established by default. Danning v.

3

Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978).

4

The Court finds that all seven Eitel factors weigh in favor of granting default judgment

5

against Mary Taylor. First, the Plaintiffs would suffer prejudice if the Court does not enter default

6

judgment against this Defendant because they would be denied the finality of judgment sought

7

through their interpleader action. See Trustees of IL WU-PMA Pension Plan v. Peters, 660 F. Supp.

8

2d at 1144 (finding prejudice “if default judgment were not granted because [the ERISA plan

9

fiduciaries] would be denied the certainty and finality that judgment in an interpleader action is
intended to provide.”); see also W. Reserve Life Assurance Co. of Ohio v. Canul, No. 11-cv-01751

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

AWI, 2012 WL 844589, at *2 (E.D. Cal Mar. 12, 2012), report and recommendation adopted, No.

12

11-cv-01751 AWI, 2012 WL 1074952 (E.D. Cal. Mar. 29, 2012) (holding that the plaintiff “would

13

be prejudiced if a default judgment is not granted” because plaintiff “has no other alternative by

14

which to evaluate [d]efendant’s claim to the life insurance policy.”) (citation omitted); W.

15

Conference of Teamsters Pension Plan v. Jennings, No. 10-cv-03629, 2011 WL 2609858, at *3

16

(N.D. Cal. June, 5, 2011) (“Plaintiff and [answering defendant] would suffer prejudice if the Court

17

does not enter default judgment. The dispute concerns [d]efendants’ competing claims to

18

interpleaded funds. Without entry of default judgment, the competing stakeholders’ claims cannot

19

be resolved.”).

20

The second and third factors – the merits of the Plaintiffs’ substantive claim and the

21

sufficiency of the complaint – also weigh in favor of default judgment. These two factors together

22

require “plaintiffs’ allegations [to] state a claim on which the [plaintiff] may recover.” Kloepping v.

23

Fireman’s Fund, No. 94-cv-2684 TEH, 1996 WL 75314, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 13, 1996). See also

24

Danning v. Lavine, 572 F.2d 1386, 1388 (9th Cir. 1978) (“The issue here is whether the allegations

25

in the complaint are sufficient to state a claim on which the [moving party] may recover.”). The

26

primary purposes for an action in interpleader are “(1) to protect the party depositing the funds with

27

the court from secondary, follow-up actions and (2) to protect the resources of the interpleading

28

party.” W. Reserve Life Assur. Co. of Ohio v. Canul, 2012 WL 844589 at *2. Accepting the

9

1

Plaintiffs’ allegations in the complaint as true, the Court finds that the Trustees have stated a claim

2

upon which they may recover, as resolution of the five Defendants’ rights to the plan benefits at

3

issue will protect the Plaintiffs from multiple liability. See Canul, 2012 WL 844589 at *2.

4

Therefore, the second and third Eitel factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment against

5

Mary Taylor.

6

The fourth Eitel factor, the sum of money at stake in the action, weighs neither for nor

7

against an entry of default judgment. In interpleader actions, the sum of money at stake, however

8

significant, is not dispositive as the interpleading party is not asserting an interest in the interpleaded

9

funds, nor are they seeking damages. Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Estate of Ward, No. 11-cv-0433
JAM, 2011 WL 5241257, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2011); see also Jennings, 2011 WL 2609858 at

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

*3 (finding that the fourth Eitel factor is neutral in an interpleader action). The Plaintiffs in this

12

action are not asserting a claim to the funds, but are attempting to distribute the funds to the party

13

entitled to the plan benefits. There is no dispute that the funds to be deposited and distributed are

14

determined by the Plan.

15

The fifth and sixth Eitel factors recommend that a court consider “the possibility of a dispute

16

concerning material facts” and “whether the default was due to excusable neglect” in assessing

17

whether to grant default judgment. Eitel v. McCool, 782 F.2d at 1471-72. The Court finds that both

18

factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment. Mary Taylor has made no effort to challenge

19

the Trustees’ interpleader complaint. Therefore, there is nothing on the record before the Court to

20

suggest that a factual dispute exists. See Transamerica Life Ins. Co., 2011 WL 5241257 at *4

21

(finding that “there is a very low likelihood that any genuine issue of material fact exists” because

22

“the court [assumes] the truth of well-pleaded facts in the complaint following the clerk’s entry of

23

default”); see also Canul, 2012 WL 844589 at *3 (“[T]here is little possibility of dispute concerning

24

material facts because (1) based on the entry of default, the Court accepts all allegations in

25

Plaintiff’s Complaint as true and (2) Defendant has not made any effort to challenge the Complaint

26

or otherwise appear in this case.”). Further, considering the merits of this action, it is unlikely that

27

Mary Taylor would assert a competing claim to be designated the decedent’s “surviving spouse”

28

under the plan, given that her marriage to Mr. Taylor ended in February 1985, and the decedent

10

1

twice remarried in the twenty four years before his death. Turning to the sixth factor, the Plaintiffs

2

sought and obtained administrative relief to proceed with substituted service on Mary Taylor. See

3

Docket Nos. 23-24, 61-62. The Plaintiffs then effectuated service by publication. See Docket Nos.

4

26, 29, 63. “[I]t is unlikely that [the defendant’s] failure to answer, and the resulting defaults

5

entered by the [clerk], were the result of excusable neglect” where “[the plaintiff] effectuated service

6

on [the defendant] via substituted service, which is a method permitted by law.” Canul, 2012 WL

7

844589 at *3. Therefore, these two factors also weigh in favor of default judgment.

8
9

Finally, while public policy favors decisions on the merits, see Eitel, 782 F.2d at 1472, Mary
Taylor’s failure to defend this action renders a decision on the merits “impractical, if not
impossible.” PepsiCo, Inc. v. California Sec. Cans, 238 F. Supp. 2d 1172, 1177 (C.D. Cal. 2002).

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

“Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a), termination of a case before hearing the merits is allowed whenever a

12

defendant fails to defend an action.” Id. At any rate, in light of the weight of the above factors in

13

favor of entering default judgment, this last Eitel factor is not dispositive. See Transamerica Life

14

Ins. Co., 2011 WL 5241257 at *4 (finding that the policy favoring decisions on the merits does not

15

by itself preclude entry of default judgment).

16

In sum, the Court finds that the Eitel factors weigh in favor of entering default judgment

17

against Defendant Mary Taylor.

18

C.

19

Injunction Against Defaulting Defendants
The Plaintiffs’ interpleader complaint seeks an “Injunctive Order of this Court” to prevent

20

the named Defendants “from commencing or maintaining any action against the Plaintiffs, the

21

Pension Plan,[] ILWU, PMA, or the Plans Office regarding entitlement to the Survivor Pension

22

benefits payable under the Pension Plan on account of James A. Taylor.” Compl. at 10. Unlike

23

statutory interpleader, rule interpleader under Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 does not authorize courts to enjoin

24

litigants from pursuing further claims in state or federal court with regard to the res at issue. See

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(e) (“These rules do not modify . . . 28 U.S.C. § 2361, which relates to preliminary

26

injunctions in actions of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader.”). However, courts have used

27

the All Writs Statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, to enjoin defendants in an interpleader action from bringing

28

future proceedings regarding the same claim in federal court. See New York Life Ins. Co. v.

11

1

Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 879 (5th Cir. 1998) (“Under the All Writs Statute, a federal court has the

2

power to enjoin a party before it from attempting to relitigate the same issues or related issues

3

precluded by the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel in another federal court.

4

Accordingly, a federal court in a Rule 22 interpleader proceeding may issue an injunction to restrain

5

the parties from pursuing such issues in another federal court.”) (citations omitted). This is because

6

relitigation of these issues “would be judicially wasteful and raise the possibility of inconsistent

7

results. It would also defeat the purpose of the [plaintiffs’] interpleader action.” Trustees of IL WU-

8

PMA Pension Plan v. Peters, 660 F. Supp. 2d at 1145.

9

Further, courts have held that injunctions issued pursuant to the All Writs Statute may be
used to enjoin parties from relitigating the same issues or claims before state courts. Normally, the

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

Anti–Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2283, “limits the ability of federal courts to enjoin state court

12

proceedings.” Peters, 660 F. Supp. 2d at 1144. However, an exception has been recognized for

13

injunctions that are “necessary in aid of [the court’s] jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its

14

judgment.” Id. This exception is referred to as the “relitigation exception.” Id. (citing Chick Kam

15

Choo v. Exxon Corp., 486 U.S. 140, 147 (1988)). See also Gen. Ry. Signal Co. v. Corcoran, 921

16

F.2d 700, 707 (7th Cir. 1991) (“A federal court presiding over an interpleader action may stay

17

pending state court proceedings involving the same interpled fund under the ‘necessary in aid of its

18

jurisdiction’ exception to the Anti–Injunction Act.”).

19

To be afforded injunctive relief from relitigation, the party seeking the injunction must prove

20

that it would otherwise suffer irreparable harm. Peters, 660 F. Supp. 2d at 1144-45 (citing Beacon

21

Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 506-07 (1959)). The Court will generally grant such an

22

injunction “where there is a likelihood of costly and judicially wasteful relitigation of claims and

23

issues that were already adjudicated in federal court.” Id. (citing Quintero v. Klaveness Ship Lines,

24

914 F.2d 717, 721 (5th Cir.1990)). In this action, the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm if

25

faced with future claims to the interpled funds brought by Defendant Mary Taylor after this action

26

has been adjudicated against her. See id. at 1145 (finding irreparable harm where relitigation would

27

be “judicially wasteful and raise the possibility of inconsistent results”). The Plaintiff fiduciaries

28

and administrators here are merely disinterested stakeholders seeking to enforce the terms of an

12

1

ERISA employee benefits plan and distribute the benefits to the appropriate party. As in Peters,

2

relitigation would defeat the purpose of Plaintiffs’ interpleader action and result in waste. See id. at

3

1145. An injunction here is necessary in order to prevent judicial wastefulness and the “possibility

4

of inconsistent results.” See id. Thus, the Court finds that Mary Taylor must be enjoined from

5

bringing any further action in state or federal court regarding her claims to the subject benefits on

6

account of James Taylor.

7
8
9

V.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ motion for entry of default
judgment against Defendant Mary Taylor, and enjoins her from commencing or maintaining any
action against the Plaintiffs regarding her entitlement to the Survivor Pension benefits payable under

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

the Pension Plan on account of James A. Taylor.

12

This order disposes of Docket No. 67.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.

15
16

Dated: February 12, 2013

17

_________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

13