Jacques v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Company et al

Filing 36

ORDER granting 32 Motion for Joinder, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 8/11/2014.(trlee, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland
Civil Action No. 14-cv-00755-RM-BNB
STEPHANIE JACQUES,
Plaintiff,
v.
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,
UNITED AIRLINES CONSOLIDATED WELFARE BENEFIT PLAN,
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., and
MICHELE SATRIANO,
Defendants,
v.
TAYA SWEEDEN, as Trustee of the Bankruptcy Estate of Michele Lynn Bauer,
Third Party Defendant.
______________________________________________________________________________
ORDER
______________________________________________________________________________
Pending is plaintiff’s Motion for Permissive Joinder of Plaintiff and for Leave to File
an Amended Complaint [Doc. # 32, filed 7/30/2014] (the “Motion”). The plaintiff seeks to add
Paula Jacques-Bonneau as a plaintiff pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 20 and to file an amended
complaint.
At issue in this case is the identity of the proper beneficiary to receive the life insurance
benefits which became payable upon the death of Stephen Jacques. The claimants are Stephanie
Jacques, the decedent’s daughter, and Michele Satriano, the decedent’s former wife. The Motion
seeks to join Paula Jacques-Bonneau, the decedent’s sister, as another plaintiff.

Satriano opposes the Motion arguing that a conflict of interest exists between the Jacques
and Bonneau which precludes joinder. In support, Satriano cites Markakis v. SS Volendam, 475
F. Supp. 29 (S.D.N.Y.).
First, it is not apparent that a conflict exists. A letter dated May 10, 2013, from Bonneau
to MetLife indicates that Bonneau believes that the decedent “changed all benefits to his only
child,” Jacques. Second, the Markakis case is easily distinguished--it was a case in admiralty;
involved a class action; there was an inadequate showing that the claims of the plaintiff, a vessel
master, and the claims of seamen seeking to be joined as plaintiffs asserted claims arising out of
the same transaction or occurrence or that there were common questions of law and fact because
the master and the seamen served on the vessel at different times; and a conflict existed between
the master and seamen because of the nature of their service on the vessel.
Rule 20(a), Fed. R. Civ. P., allows permissive joinder where persons “assert any right to
relief jointly, severally, or in the alternative . . . arising out of the same transaction, occurrence,
or series of transactions” and common questions of law or fact will arise. Those requirements
are met here. Jacques and Bonneau assert that they (or one of them) has a superior claim to the
decedent’s life insurance over Satriano, which is a claim jointly, severally, or in the alternative;
the claim arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions involving entitlement to the
decedent’s life insurance benefits; and common questions of law and fact concerning the
superior claim will arise. In addition, amendment of the complaint is appropriate under Fed. R.
Civ. P. 15.
IT IS ORDERED:
(1)

The Motion [Doc. # 32] is GRANTED; and

2

(2)

The Clerk of the Court is directed to accept for filing the First Amended

Complaint [Doc. # 32-1].
Dated August 11, 2014.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Boyd N. Boland
United States Magistrate Judge

3