Pacific Life Insurance Company v. Sarfarazi et al
Filing
30
ORDER adopting 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; granting in part and denying in part 17 Pacific Life Insurance Company's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Faith A. Sarfarazi MD PA 412i Defined Benefit Plan; and granting in pa rt and denying in part 18 Pacific Life Insurance Company's Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Faith A. Sarfarazi, M.D., P.A. On or before 8/28/2015, Pacific Life should file a reply in support of 28 motion to deposit funds, serving a copy on Defendant Mohsen P. Sarfarazi. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Corrigan on 8/11/2015. (BJB)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JACKSONVILLE DIVISION
PACIFIC LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY, a Nebraska Corporation,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 3:14-cv-1330-J-32JRK
MOHSEN P. SARFARAZI,
individually, FAITH A. SARFARAZI,
MD PA 412i Defined Benefit Plan, and
FAITH A. SARFARAZI, M.D. P.A.,
Defendants.
ORDER
The status of this interpleader action is a little complicated. The case is
currently before the Court on Plaintiff Pacific Life Insurance Company’s motions for
default judgment against Defendant Faith A. Sarfarazi, MD PA 412i Defined Benefit
Plan (“the Plan”) and Faith A. Sarfarazi, M.D. P.A. (“the Professional Association”)
(Docs. 17, 18), and on Pacific Life’s Motion for Court to Take Judicial Notice of IRS
Lien, for Leave to Deposit Funds into the Court Registry, and for Dismissal with
Prejudice (“motion to deposit funds”) (Doc. 28). The motions for default judgment were
referred to the assigned United States Magistrate Judge. On June 25, 2015, the
assigned United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation that
both motions be granted to the extent that default judgment should be enter against
the Plan and the Professional Association, but denied without prejudice to Pacific Life
later moving for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 21.)
On July 2, 2015, about a week after the Report and Recommendation issued,
Defendant Mohsen P. Sarfarazi (“Dr. Sarfarazi”) moved for an extension of time to file
any objections because his counsel planned on moving to withdraw. (Doc. 22.) On July
6, 2015, counsel did move to withdraw. (Doc. 23.) On July 8, 2015, the Magistrate
Judge granted the motion for extension of time and gave the parties until August 7,
2015 to file any objection. (Doc. 24). That same day, the Magistrate Judge granted the
motion to withdraw, directed counsel to serve a copy of the order on Dr. Sarfarazi,
advised Dr. Sarfarazi that he would be proceeding pro se unless and until new counsel
appeared, and gave him until July 27, 2015 to file a notice advising how he intended
to proceed. (Doc. 25.) On July 24, 2015, Dr. Sarfarazi confirmed he would be proceeding
pro se. (Doc. 27).
On August 3, 2015, before the deadline to file objections had expired, Pacific
Life filed its motion to deposit funds. In the motion, Pacific Life proposes to deposit in
the registry of the Court an amount of funds that it believes Dr. Sarfarazi agreed
would settle Pacific Life’s obligations, and to then be discharged of any liability and
dismissed from the case. (Doc. 28.) On August 6, 2015, Dr. Sarfarazi filed a response
to the motion to deposit funds, objecting to it on a number of grounds. (Doc. 29.)
The undersigned will begin with the motions for default judgment and the
Report and Recommendation. No party has filed an objection to the Report and
Recommendation, and the time in which to do so has passed.
See 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b); M.D. Fla. R. 6.02(a). Upon de novo review of the file,
the undersigned will largely adopt the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate
2
Judge (Doc. 21) as the opinion of the Court, 1 and, for the reasons stated in the Report
and Recommendation, will grant the motions for default in part and deny them
without prejudice in part. The Court intends to enter default judgment against the
Plan and the Professional Association, terminating their interests and restraining and
enjoining them from instituting any action against Pacific Life for recovery of benefits
under the insurance policies at issue in this case.
The Report and Recommendation also recommends that Pacific Life be required
to deposit the proceeds of the policies, plus interest, into the registry of the Court. (Doc.
21 at 10.) That general recommendation is not in dispute either. The undersigned
adopts this recommendation, as well, and intends to direct Pacific Life to deposit funds
in the registry of the Court.
Based on the papers before it, however, the undersigned cannot determine the
amount to be deposited. Moreover, Pacific Life should respond to the issues raised in
Dr. Sarfarazi’s response. Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED:
1.
The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. 21) is
ADOPTED as the opinion of the Court to the extent stated above.
2.
Pacific Life Insurance Company’s Motion for Default Judgment Against
Defendant Faith A. Sarfarazi MD PA 412i Defined Benefit Plan (Doc. 17) and Pacific
Life Insurance Company’s Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Faith A.
Though the Report and Recommendation suggests there is subject-matter
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, upon review, the undersigned instead finds
jurisdiction under the general diversity-of-citizenship provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
1
3
Sarfarazi, M.D., P.A. (Doc. 18) are GRANTED in part and DENIED without
prejudice in part.
3.
The Court intends to enter default judgment against the Plan and the
Professional Association terminating their interests, if any, in the proceeds of the
policies at issue and restraining and enjoining them from instituting any action
against Pacific Life for recovery of the proceeds.
4.
On or before August 28, 2015, Pacific Life should file a reply in support
of its motion to deposit funds, serving a copy on Dr. Sarfarazi.
DONE AND ORDERED at Jacksonville, Florida this 11th day of August,
2015.
bjb
Copies to:
Honorable James R. Klindt
United States Magistrate Judge
Counsel of record
Via U.S. Mail and e-mail to:
Mohsen P. Sarfarazi
14 Clee Court
Palm Coast, FL 32137
sarfarazifamily@aol.com
4
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?