Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Pharmatech, LLC et al

Filing 467

ORDER holding case in abeyance and directing Clerk to administratively close the case. Signed by Judge William F. Jung on 1/18/2023. (CCB)

Case 8:18-cv-02550-WFJ-AAS Document 467 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3 PageID 2469

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT
LLOYD’S OF LONDON subscribing to
Policy number GLX0843-01,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:18-cv-2550-WFJ-AAS

VIRTUS PHARMACEUTICALS, LLC,
MELISSA GERALDS, and VIRTUS
PHARMACEUTICALS OPCO II, LLC,
Defendants.
___________________________________/
ORDER
This cause comes before the Court pursuant to a show cause order (Dkt.
464). Having reviewed both responses to the order (Dkts. 465, 466) and the entire
file, the Court concludes this matter should be abated and stayed until the
resolution of the pending Texas state court case.
Defendant Melissa Geralds filed a petition in the Ellis County, Texas state
district court on April 20, 2017. Dkt. 466 ¶ 9 & Ex. C ¶ 5. Ms. Geralds amended
the lawsuit on September 10, 2018, to “add personal injury claims and wrongful
death claims against Virtus Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Virtus Pharmaceuticals Opco
II, LLC, Pharmatech, LLC [and two additional defendants].” Dkt. 466 Ex. C ¶¶ 6,
7. & attached amended Texas petition. According to all remaining Defendants in

Case 8:18-cv-02550-WFJ-AAS Document 467 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3 PageID 2470

this federal interpleader action, the state court case is set for trial May 4, 2023.
Dkt. 463 ¶ 1.
The instant federal interpleader action was filed on October 16, 2018. Dkt.
1. The unopposed motion to deposit Plaintiff’s policy funds of $2,049,133.06 with
the Clerk of Court was granted March 12, 2019. Dkt. 185. Per counsel for Ms.
Geralds, the Texas state court case was stayed insofar as any action against this res
when this interpleader action was filed and “by this Court’s injunction that
precludes claims against the insurance proceeds outside of this interpleader
action.” Dkt. 466 ¶¶ 1, 9, 23.1
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2361, the purpose of an injunction is to restrain claimants
from prosecuting any proceeding that may affect the property, which in this case is
the policy funds, and to protect the disinterested stakeholder from facing multiple
lawsuits over the same property. Dkt. 232 (citing State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.
Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 534 (1967); Orseck, P.A. v. Servicios Legales De
Mesoamerica S. De R.L., 699 F. Supp. 2d 1344, 1351 (S.D. Fla. 2010)). Since the
filing of this case over four years ago, only two claimants remain—the Virtus

1

Although Plaintiff never filed an injunction against Ms. Geralds, Plaintiff filed a motion to
enjoin another Defendant’s (Shirley Wienelt’s) separate lawsuit. Dkt. 117. The injunction was
granted partly based on the other Defendant’s filing of a separate lawsuit after this interpleader
was filed and partly because the separate lawsuit might affect the same policy funds involved in
this interpleader action. Dkts. 232, 243. A default judgment was entered against Ms. Wienelt in
this case in October 2019. Dkt. 283.

2

Case 8:18-cv-02550-WFJ-AAS Document 467 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3 of 3 PageID 2471

Defendants and Ms Geralds.2 Plaintiff is now left with one pending lawsuit, which
involves these claimants and was filed prior to this interpleader action. On
balance, the Texas state court case is better poised to allow the development of the
facts and resolution of Ms. Geralds’ case. The death occurred in Texas and a jury
trial is presently set.3
Accordingly, this interpleader action is held in abeyance so that the Texas
state court may proceed in Ms. Geralds’ pending case against the Virtus
Defendants and others. The parties should alert this Court via motion when further
judicial action is required in this interpleader action. The Clerk is directed to
administratively close this case.
DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on January 18, 2023.

COPIES FURNISHED TO:
Counsel of record

2
3

All claims have been either settled or default judgments entered against the claimants.
The Virtus Defendants have cited no authority that prohibits this Court from abating this action.

3