The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America v. Waterhouse et al

Filing 31

STIPULATION AND ORDER re 29 STIPULATION WITH PROPOSED ORDER to Stay Proceedings filed by Jules Sibilio. Signed by Judge Jon S. Tigar on October 26, 2015. (wsn, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/26/2015)

1
2
3
4
5
6

Edward W. Swanson, SBN 159859
August Gugelmann, SBN 240544
SWANSON & McNAMARA LLP
300 Montgomery Street, Suite 1100
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
Attorneys for JULES SIBILIO

7
8
9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

10

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

11
12
13

THE GUARDIAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18

No. CV 15-3271 JST
STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED]
ORDER STAYING CASE

vs.
ANN ATCHISON WATERHOUSE, as
Administrator of the ESTATE OF MARY
AILEEN ATCHISON; JULES SIBILIO, an
individual; and DOES 1-10, inclusive,

19

Defendants

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff-in-Interpleader The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America and
Defendants-in-Interpleader Jules Sibilio and Ann Atchison Waterhouse hereby stipulate and
agree as follows:

1

1)

On July 14, 2015, the Guardian filed this interpleader action arising from the

2

death of Mary Atchison on August 26, 2014. The complaint alleges that Ms. Atchison was

3

insured for group life and accidental death and dismemberment benefits under a plan established

4
5
6

by her employer; that Mr. Sibilio is the primary beneficiary of Ms. Atchison’s benefits under the
plan; that Ms. Atchison’s death was ruled a homicide and Mr. Sibilio has been charged with her

7

murder; and that Ms. Waterhouse, as administrator of Ms. Atchison’s estate, has submitted a

8

claim for benefits under the policy. The Guardian requests that “the defendants be required to

9

interplead and settle among themselves their respective rights to the proceeds” under Ms.

10
11
12

Atchison’s insurance plan.
2)

The defendants have filed answers to the complaint. In her answer, Ms.

13

Waterhouse alleges that Mr. Sibilio is disqualified from receiving the policy proceeds pursuant

14

to, inter alia, California’s “slayer statute,” codified in Probate Code section 252, which prohibits

15

individual who feloniously and intentionally kills the person upon whose life the policy was

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

issued from recovering benefits under the policy. In his answer, Mr. Sibilio has asserted his
Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.
3)

Mr. Sibilio is the sole defendant in the currently-pending matter of People v. Jules

Sibilio, San Francisco Superior Court No. 14022755. In that case, Mr. Sibilio is charged with
homicide in violation of Penal Code § 187(a) with respect to the same subject matter as the
complaint, i.e. the death of Ms. Atchison.
4)

The parties agree that the Court has discretion to stay these proceedings in the

25

face of the parallel criminal action. See, e.g., Fed. Sav. & Loan Ins. Corp. v. Molinaro, 889 F.2d

26

899, 902 (9th Cir. 1989); Keating v. Office of Thrift Supervision, 45 F.3d 322, 324-25 (9th Cir.

27
28

1995). The Court’s decision whether to stay the case “should be made in light of the particular
2
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay Proceedings
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Waterhouse, et al., CV 15-3271 JST

1

circumstances and competing interests involved.” Keating, 45 F.3d at 324 (internal quotation

2

omitted).

3

5)

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

appropriate in light of the factors outlined in Ninth Circuit case law:
[T]he decisionmaker should consider the extent to which the defendant’s Fifth
Amendment rights are implicated. In addition, the decisionmaker should
generally consider the following factors: (1) the interest of the plaintiffs in
proceeding expeditiously with this litigation or any particular aspect of it, and the
potential prejudice to plaintiffs of a delay; (2) the burden which any particular
aspect of the proceedings may impose on defendants; (3) the convenience of the
court in the management of its cases, and the efficient use of judicial resources;
(4) the interests of persons not parties to the civil litigation; and (5) the interest of
the public in the pending civil and criminal litigation.
Keating, 45 F.3d at 324-25 (citation and internal quotations omitted). In particular, the parties
agree that:

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The parties agree that a stay pending final resolution of People v. Sibilio is

a)

The question of which defendant is entitled to proceeds under the Plan

hinges on the question of liability for Ms. Atchison’s death. Thus, the subject matter of this case
overlaps completely with that of People v. Sibilio, and Mr. Sibilio’s Fifth Amendment rights are
implicated.
b)

The Guardian, as plaintiff in this action, has deposited the disputed funds

with the Court and thus has no particular interest in proceeding expeditiously with this litigation
and will suffer no prejudice as a result of a stay. The parties have agreed that Guardian may seek
to be discharged and dismissed from the case with reasonable fees, and that the requested stay
shall not prevent Guardian from doing so.
c)

Ms. Waterhouse will suffer no prejudice as a result of a stay. Given that

the Guardian has deposited the disputed funds with the Court, there is no risk of loss of any sum
to which Ms. Waterhouse, in her capacity as administrator of the estate, may be entitled.
3
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay Proceedings
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Waterhouse, et al., CV 15-3271 JST

d)

1

By contrast, Mr. Sibilio will be prejudiced in the absence of a stay. Given

2

the pending criminal proceedings, Mr. Sibilio has asserted his Fifth Amendment rights in this

3

matter. His assertion will severely impede his ability to make or defend any claim to the

4
5
6
7

proceeds of the Plan. See, e.g., Doe ex rel. Rudy-Glanzer v. Glanzer, 232 F.3d 1258, 1264 (9th
Cir. 2000) (in a civil case, decisionmaker may draw adverse inferences from a party’s invocation
of the Fifth Amendment).
e)

8
9
10
11
12

Staying this case pending resolution of People v. Sibilio is in the interests

of judicial economy. It is likely that resolution of People v. Sibilio will also resolve this matter.
Should that not be the case, resolution of People v. Sibilio will likely expedite these proceedings,
as factual and/or legal questions that may arise in this case could be resolved in course of the

13

criminal matter.

14

f)

15

proceedings whose interests would be harmed by a stay.

16
17
18

g)

21
22
23
24

The parties agree that the interest of the public lies with resolution of the

criminal matter and that the public’s interest will not be prejudiced by a stay.
6)

19
20

The parties are unaware of any person not currently a party to these

According, the parties stipulate and agree that the Court should enter an order

staying all proceedings here pending final resolution of People v. Sibilio. The parties further
agree that the requested stay shall not prevent Guardian from seeking to be discharged and
dismissed from the case with reasonable fees.
///

25
26
27
28

4
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay Proceedings
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Waterhouse, et al., CV 15-3271 JST

1
2
3

7)

The parties further agree that, during the pendency of the stay, defendants will

submit reports every three months apprising the Court of the status of People v. Sibilio.
IT IS SO STIPULATED.

4
5

Dated: October 23, 2015

/s/
.
Edward W. Swanson
August Gugelmann
SWANSON & McNAMARA LLP
Attorneys for Jules Sibilio

Dated: October 23, 2015

/s/
.
Marie G. Quashnock
ALVIS QUASHNOCK AND ASSOCIATES, PC
Attorneys for Ann A. Waterhouse, as Administrator
of the Estate of Mary Aileen Atchison

Dated: October 23, 2015

/s/
.
Keiko J. Kojima
BURKE, WILLIAMS & SORENSEN LLP
Attorneys for The Guardian Life Insurance
Company of America

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

ORDER
Pursuant to stipulation and for good cause shown, IT IS SO ORDERED. The Court

19

hereby STAYS all proceedings in this case pending final resolution of People v. Jules Sibilio,

20

San Francisco Superior Court No. 14022755, except that the stay shall not prevent Guardian

21
22
23
24
25
26

from seeking to be discharged and dismissed from the case with reasonable fees. Defendants are
to file reports on the status of People v. Sibilio every three months.
Dated: October 26, 2015

______________________
Hon. Jon S. Tigar
United States District Court

27
28

5
Stipulation and [Proposed] Order to Stay Proceedings
Guardian Life Insurance Co. of America v. Waterhouse, et al., CV 15-3271 JST