The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bacon et al

Filing 11

ORDER granting Prudential's request for interpleader (doc. 1); granting 9 Motion for Entry of Default as to Nicholas S. Bacon; granting 10 Joint Motion to Deposit Funds; granting 10 Motion to Dismiss; and denying Prudential's request for attorneys' fees (doc. 1). The Court Orders the Clerk of Court to: (1) Enter Default against Defendant Bacon; (2) Receive into the Registry of this Court payment by Prudential of the Death Benefit in the amount of $100,000 plus applica ble interest; (3) and Dismiss Prudential from this case. Furthermore, it Orders Defendants to enter pleadings establishing their adversity to one another and stating their claims to the Death Benefit within 21 days of the entry of this Order. Defendants shall serve their pleadings on one another in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 05/25/2018. (thb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
STATESBORO DIVISION

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE

*

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*

CV 617-134

*

V.

NICHOLAS S. BACON and ERIC C.

*

SMITH,

*

Defendants.

*
*

ORDER

Plaintiff,

the

Prudential

Insurance

Company

of

America

("Prudential"), seeks relief from multiple liabilities it could
face

the

from

Defendants

distribution

Eric

Smith

of insurance

and

Nicholas

proceeds.

Bacon

Before the

related

to

Court are

several motions: (1) Prudential's request for interpleader (doc.
1); (2) Defendant Smith's Motion for Entry of Default (doc. 9);
and

(3)

funds

Prudential

and

dismiss

and

Defendant

Prudential

Smith's

(doc.

10).

request
The

to

Court

deposit
GRANTS

Prudential's request for interpleader; ORDERS the Clerk of Court
to

enter

default

against

Defendant

Bacon;

GRANTS

Prudential's

request to deposit funds; DISMISSES Prudential from this case;
and DENIES Prudential's request for attorneys' fees.

I. BACKGROUND

Prudential provided a life insurance policy (the "Policy")
worth

$100,000

"Insured").

Insured.

sole

Bacon.

wound

Defendant

"Death

Benefit")

to

Montez

Bacon

(the

Defendants Bacon and Smith are the children of the

The

Defendant

gunshot

(the

On

to

Bacon

the
on

primary
March

3,

back.

charges

beneficiary
2017,

That
of

of

the

same

the

Insured

day,

aggravated

Policy
died

police

assault

from

is
a

arrested

and

murder

related to the Insured's death.

On October 18, 2017, Prudential filed a complaint in this

Court against Defendants.

According to Prudential, Georgia law

prohibits Defendant Bacon from collecting the Death Benefit if
he "feloniously and intentionally" killed the Insured.
at 4.)

(Doc. 1,

If Defendant Bacon did "feloniously and intentionally"

kill the Insured, "then it would be as if [Defendant Bacon] had

predeceased the Insured and the Death Benefit would be payable
to

the

Insured's

surviving

child,

[Defendant

Smith]."

(Id.)

Prudential claims that it "cannot determine factually or legally
who

is

willing

entitled

and

able

to

the

to

Death

pay

the

Benefit" but

Death

that

Benefit,

it

plus

is "ready

applicable

interest, if any, in accordance with the terms of the [Policy]."
(Id.

at

5.)

Prudential's

complaint

requests

that

this

Court

allow it to deposit the Death Benefit into the Court's Registry,
grant its request for interpleader between Defendants Bacon and

Smith,
fees.

discharge

it from

the

action,

and

award

it

attorneys'

(Id. at 6.)

Defendant Smith filed

an

answer to Prudential's complaint

on November 15, 2017, which objected to Prudential's request to
be dismissed on the grounds that ^'the Insured may have selected
a

plan

option

that

obligated

$200,000 in Death Benefits."

[Prudential]

to

(Doc. 7, at 2.)

pay

as

much

as

Defendant Bacon,

however, failed to file any response to Prudential's complaint.
Thus, on November 28, 2017, Defendant Smith filed a motion for

entry of default against Defendant Bacon.
On March 30, 2018, Prudential and

(Doc. 9.)
Defendant Smith filed a

"Joint Motion for Permission to Deposit Funds and For Dismissal
of [Prudential]."

permission

for

(Doc. 10.)

Prudential

to

In this motion, the parties seek

deposit

funds

into

the

Court's

Registry and ask the Court to "discharg[e] Prudential of all
liability with respect to the [Policy] and the Death Benefit and
dismiss[] with prejudice all claims against Prudential relating
to the [Policy] and/or Death Benefit."

(Id. at 2-3.)

II. DISCUSSION

A. Interpleader

Interpleader is a "remedial joinder device" which "allows a
stakeholder

money or
assert

who

is

uncertain

if

and

to

whom

property held by him to join those

claims

against

him."

22

Charles

A.

he

is

liable

for

who are or might
Wright,

Arthur

R.

Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1702,
p. 533 {3d ed. 2001) (hereinafter ''Federal Practice").

It is

authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, which states,
"persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or

multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to
interplead."

Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1).

Courts
Federal

apply

the

interpleader

Practice, § 1714

must determine

at 624.

remedy in
In

whether the requesting

two

the first

stages.

22

stage, courts

party has the

right "to

compel the claimants to litigate their claims to the stake in
one

proceeding."

Id.

at

624-25.

If

a

court

allows

interpleader, it must then join the proposed defendants to the
litigation

and

instruct them

to interplead.

Id.

After

the

parties interplead, the Court may proceed to the second stage
and

determine "the

stake."

Id. at 628.

respective

rights

of the

claimants to the

At this point, each claimant is adverse to

the others and must prove its right to the disputed stake.

Id.

The Court is currently in the first stage, where Prudential

must
Smith

prove
as

that

it is

defendants

in

entitled
this

Prudential has met its burden.

$100,000

of

benefits.

to

join

Defendants

litigation.

The

Court

Bacon

and

concludes

Prudential is the stakeholder of

Defendant

Bacon

is

currently

the

beneficiary, but his arrest for the murder of the Insured casts
legitimate doubt on his right to collect.

If he cannot collect.

Defendant Smith may be the proper beneficiary.

In other words.

Prudential faces multiple liability: it has a finite amount of
funds that could be claimed by multiple persons.
Because Prudential has demonstrated that it faces multiple

liability,

the

and

Defendants

joins

litigation.

Court

GRANTS

Bacon

Prudential's

and

Smith

interpleader

as

request

defendants

in

this

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Defendants Bacon and

Smith to interplead, and both SHALL enter pleadings establishing
their adversity to one another and stating their claims to the
Death Benefit WITHIN 21 DAYS of the entry of this Order.
Federal

each

See 22

Practice, § 1715 at 632 (''If interpleader is ordered,

claimant

should

respond

to

the

claims

of

the

other

claimants by denying their validity so that issue is joined.").
Defendants

Bacon

and

Smith

SHALL

also

serve

each

other

with

their pleadings in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure.

B. Request to Discharge and Enjoin

Next,
Court

the

dismiss

Court
it

from

addresses
this

Prudential's

action

and

request

enjoin

that

Defendants

the
from

prosecuting any action against it related to the coverage it
provided the Insured.

"When the court decides that interpleader

is available, it may issue an order discharging the stakeholder,
if the stakeholder is disinterested, enjoining the parties from

prosecuting
matter,

and

any

other

directing

proceeding
the

related

claimants

to

to

the

same

interplead;

subject

the

court

also may make any other order that is appropriate and convenient
for

the

resolution
1714

of

at

the

Practice,

§

627.

requested

competing
Defendant

the Court dismiss

claims."
Smith

Prudential and

has

22

Federal

affirmatively

enjoin

Defendants.

Defendant Bacon has not responded to Prudential's request, and

thus has waived any objections.

respond

L.R. 7.5, SDGa. (^^Failure to

within the applicable time period shall indicate that

there is no opposition to a motion.").
finds

that

Prudential

is

a

Additionally, the Court

disinterested

stakeholder.

Accordingly, the Court now DISMISSES Prudential from this action
and

ENJOINS

Defendants

from

prosecuting

any

action

against

Prudential related to the Insured's coverage under the Policy or

Prudential's payment of any benefits under the Policy.
C. Request to Deposit Funds

Prudential also requests
Benefit

into

the

Court's

permission to deposit the

Registry.

Federal

Rule

of

Death
Civil

Procedure 67 details the procedure for depositing funds into the
Court's Registry.

It states that ''[i]f any part of the relief

sought is . . . the disposition of a sum of money . . . a party
— on notice to every other party and by leave of the court — may

deposit with the court all or part of the money . . . ."
R.

Civ.

P.

67(a)

(emphasis

added).

Here,

Prudential

Fed.
placed

every other party on notice of its intent to deposit funds in
its

complaint

and

its

joint

motion

with

Defendant

Smith.

Defendant Smith has affirmatively asked the Court to accept the
funds into its Registry, and Defendant Bacon made no response to
Prudential's request, despite ample time to do so.
Court

GRANTS

Prudential's

request to

deposit

the Clerk of Court to receive into the

payment

by

Prudential

of the

Death

funds

Thus, the
and

ORDERS

Registry of this Court

Benefit

in

the

amount

of

$100,000 plus applicable interest.
D. A-bborneys' Fees

Prudential's complaint requests ^^attorneys' fees and costs

in their entirety" (doc. 1, at 6), but Prudential's joint motion
to

dismiss

and

deposit

funds

asks

the

Court

to

^Mismiss[]

Prudential from this action, with prejudice, and without cost to

any party"

(doc. 10, at 3).

The Court concludes, therefore,

that Prudential has abandoned its request for attorneys' fees.
But even if Prudential has not abandoned its request, it may not

receive attorneys' fees.
Prudential

and

its

As this Court has previously informed

counsel,

binding

precedent

Prudential from receiving attorneys' fees.
Co.

of Am.

V.

Bailey,

No. CV

(S.D. Ga. Sept. 29, 2017).

prohibits

See Prudential Ins.

616-060, 2017

WL 4340169, at *6

Thus, the Court DENIES Prudential's

claim for attorneys' fees related to its interpleader claim.
E. Default

Finally, the Court addresses the issue of default.
Rule

of

Civil

Procedure

55(a)

states

that

^Mw]hen

Federal
a

party

against

whom

a

judgment for

affirmative

relief is

sought

has

failed to plead or otherwise defend, and that failure is shown

by

affidavit

default."

or

otherwise,

the

clerk

must

enter

party's

In cases using the procedural tool of interpleader,

co-defendants,

in

addition

to

the

plaintiff,

entry of default against other co-defendants.
Ins. Co.

the

may

request

an

See Columbus Life

V. Allen, No. 3:13-CV-1612-J-39JBT, 2015 WL 12696200,

at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 23, 2015) ("Although it is typically the

plaintiff

who

moves for

an

entry of

default

judgment,

not

a

defendant, the right of a defendant in an interpleader action to
do so has been recognized in this Circuit and otherwise."); New
York Life Ins. Co. v. Snyder, No. 5:ll-cv-618-Oc-34TBS, 2012 WL

4760930,

at

*1

(M.D.

Fla.

Jul.

22,

2012)

("The

right

of

a

defendant in an interpleader action to move for entry of default

judgment against a co-defendant is recognized by district courts
within

this

circuit.");

Hartford

Life

and

Annuity

Ins.

Co.

v.

Bridges, No. 3:08-CV-10 (CDL), 2008 WL 4394729, at *1 (M.D. Ga.

Sept. 24, 2008) ("While it is typically the plaintiff who moves
for an entry of default judgment, the right of a defendant in an
interpleader

action

to

do

so

is

recognized.

Generally,

interpleader defendants can utilize Rule 55 when other parties
fail

to

defend.").

Because

Defendant

Smith

has

shown

that

Defendant Bacon has failed to "plead or otherwise defend," the
Court ORDERS the Clerk to ENTER DEFAULT against Defendant Bacon.

III. CONCLUSION

The

Court

GRANTS

Prudential's

request

for

interpleader

(doc. 1.); GRANTS Prudential and Defendant Smith's joint motion

to

deposit

Defendant

DENIES

funds

Smith's

and

dismiss

motion

Prudential's

for

request

Prudential

entry

for

of

(doc.

default

attorneys'

10);

(doc.

fees

GRANTS

9.); and

(doc.

1).

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the Clerk of Court to: (1) ENTER

DEFAULT against Defendant Bacon; (2) RECEIVE into the Registry
of this Court payment by Prudential of the Death Benefit in the
amount

of

$100,000

plus

applicable

Prudential from this case.

interest;

(3)

and DISMISS

Furthermore, it ORDERS Defendants to

enter pleadings establishing their adversity to one another and
stating their claims to the Death Benefit WITHIN 21 DAYS of the

entry of this Order.
one

another

in

Defendants SHALL serve their pleadings on

accordance

with

the

Federal

Rules

of

Civil

Procedure.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

day of May,

2018.

J. ^^AMJDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE

UNITEp STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA