The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Bacon et al

Filing 18

ORDER granting 17 Motion for Entry of Judgment, directing the Clerk of Court to enter Judgement in favor of Defendant Eric C. Smith in the amount of $113,390.30, directing the Clerk of Court to disburse to Eric C. Smith the amount of $113,390.30 plus any accrued interest from the Registry. The Clerk is directed to terminate any pending deadlines or motions and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/18/2019. (thb)

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

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE

*

COMPANY OF AMERICA,

*
*

Plaintiff,

*
*

V.

*

CV 617-134

*

NICHOLAS S. BACON and ERIC C.

*

SMITH,

*
*

Defendants.

*

ORDER

Before

the

Court

Entry of Judgment.

is

Defendant

(Doc. 17.)

Eric

C.

Smith's

Motion

for

Because the lone remaining party.

Defendant Nicholas S. Bacon, is in default, the Court will construe

this filing as a motion for default judgment.

For the reasons set

forth below. Defendant Smith's motion is GRANTED.

I. BACKGROXJND

On

October

18,

2017,

Plaintiff

The

Prudential

Insurance

Company of America ('"Prudential") filed this interpleader action
concerning a group life insurance policy (the "Policy") covering
Montez

Bacon

(Compl.,

Doc.

(the

1,

"Insured")

5SI

7-11.)

in

the

Defendant

amount

of

Nicholas

$100,000.00.

S.

Bacon,

the

Insured's son, was the sole primary beneficiary under the policy.

(Id. SI 9, Ex. B.)

After the Insured's death, Defendant Eric C.

Smith, the Insured's other son, filed a Preferential Beneficiary
Statement with Prudential to claim the Policy's benefits.
16, Ex. D.)

(Id. SI

These two competing claims are the basis for this

interpleader action.
On March 3, 2017, Montez Bacon was murdered by a gunshot wound
to the back.

arrested

and

connection

O.C.G.A.

(Id. SI 10, Ex. C.)

charged

with

§

the

53-1-5

with

death

and

Nicholas S. Bacon was subsequently

aggravated
of

the

his

assault

mother.

terms

of

the

(Id.

and
SI

murder

12.)

Policy,

if

in

Under

Bacon

"'feloniously and intentionally" killed the Insured he forfeits his
right to the benefits and is treated as if he predeceased the
Insured.

person

(Id. SISI 13-15.)

Georgia law further provides that any

who commits murder or voluntary manslaughter shall not

receive benefits from any insurance policy on the life of the
deceased, even if that person is the named beneficiary.
§ 33-25-12.

O.C.G.A.

Thus, if Bacon committed the murder of the Insured,

the Policy's benefits would be payable to the Insured's heirs at
law, Eric C. Smith.

(Id. 5 15.)

Shortly after Prudential filed its complaint. Smith filed his
answer.

(Doc. 7.)

Bacon, however, has yet to file an answer or

any other responsive pleading, even though
process on October 31, 2017.

(Doc. 5.)

he was served

with

On May 25, 2018, upon joint motion from Prudential and Smith,
the Court ordered Prudential to deposit the $100,000.00 benefit

plus applicable interest into the Registry of the Court,^ dismissed
Prudential

from

the

case,

and

enjoined

Smith

and

Bacon

from

prosecuting any action against Prudential related to the Policy's
benefits.
also

(Order of May 25, 2018, Doc. 10, at 4-6.)

instructed

the

Clerk

to

enter

default

failing to plead or otherwise defend.

against

(Id. at 8.)

The Court
Bacon

for

Finally, the

Court ordered Bacon and Smith to enter pleadings establishing their

adversity to one another and their claim to the Policy's benefits
within twenty-one days.

Five

days

later.

(Id. at 5.)

Smith

entered

a

cross-claim

complaint

against Bacon establishing his own claim to the Policy's benefits.2
(See Cross-cl. Compl., Doc. 13.)

Bacon never entered a pleading

as instructed by the Court's May 25th Order.

He did, however,

file a motion for appointment of counsel within the twenty-one-day

period.

(Doc.

15.)

The

United

States

Magistrate

Judge

subsequently denied Bacon's motion concluding that this case did
not

present

an

''exceptional

appointment of counsel.

circumstance"

requiring

the

(Order of July 9, 2018, Doc. 16, at 3-

^ On June 11, 2018, the Clerk of Court certified that Prudential deposited

$113,139.30 into the Registry of the Court, which represents the $100,000.00 of
benefits plus accrued interest. (Doc. 14.)
2 Smith's sole cross-claim in his complaint is a request for a declaratory

judgment that Bacon is not entitled to the benefits because he committed a
disqualifying murder of the Insured and Smith is owed the Policy's benefits as
the heir at law of the Insured.

(See Cross-cl. Compl.,

9-16.)

4.)

Since then. Bacon remains in default and has not filed a

motion

to

set

aside

the

entry

of

default

or

a

pleading

as

instructed by the Court's May 25th Order.
On

January

4,

2019,

Smith

filed

a

"'Motion

for

Entry

of

Judgment" requesting judgment be entered in his favor and that he

be awarded the full amount of benefits currently in the Registry
of the Court.

(Doc. 17.)

Smith's motion notes that Bacon remains

in default, has not asserted any claim to the Policy's benefits,
and has not complied with the Court's May 25th Order.
the

Court

will

construe

Smith's

motion

as

a

Accordingly,

motion

for

default

judgment.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55(b) governs the Court's

ability to grant a default judgment and vests the Court
discretion to determine whether judgment should be entered.

with
Pitts

ex rel. Pitts v. Seneca Sports, Inc., 321 F. Supp. 2d 1353, 1356
(S.D. Ga. 2004).

"[A] defendant's default does not in itself

warrant the court in entering a default judgment.

There must be

a sufficient basis in the pleadings for the judgment entered . .
. . The defendant is not held to admit facts that are not well-

pleaded or to admit conclusions of law."

Nishimatsu Constr. Co.

V. Houston Nat^l Bank, 515 F.2d 1200, 1206 {5th Cir. 1975).^

A

defendant, by his default, is only deemed to have admitted the
'"plaintiff's

well-pleaded

allegations

of

fact."

Id.

Three

distinct matters are essential for the entry of default judgment:
(1) jurisdiction, (2) liability, and (3) damages.

Supp. 2d at 1356.

Pitts, 321 F.

With respect to the jurisdictional element,

"[t]he Court must have personal and subject-matter jurisdiction
over the defendant."

Id.

Furthermore, "[t]he presence of the

Court's jurisdiction must appear on the face of the complaint."
Id.

B. Jurisdiction

The Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this case under

multiple statutes.

First, the parties are diverse; Prudential is

a citizen of New Jersey and both Bacon and Smith are citizens of

Georgia.

(Compl., f 5.)

action exceed $75,000.

The Policy's benefits at issue in this

Accordingly, the Court has subject matter

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.^
Second, the Court has federal question jurisdiction pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 because the Policy funds an employee welfare

3 See Bonner v. City of Prichard, Ala., 661 F.2d 1206, 1207 (llth Cir. 1981)

(holding that Fifth Circuit decisions made on or before September 30, 1981, are
binding precedent in the Eleventh Circuit).
Prudential also invoices Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, often referred to

as rule interpleader, which requires diversity between the stakeholder and the
claimants; there is no requirement that the claimants be diverse from one
others.

See Ohio Nat. Life Assur. Co. v. Langkau ex rel. Estate of Langkau,

353 F. App'x 244, 249 (llth Cir. 2009) C^Rule 22 requires complete diversity
between the stakeholder and the claimants.").

benefit

program

governed

Security Act. C'ERISA").

by

the

Employment

See 29 U.S.C. § 1132.

Retirement

Income

Further, the Court

has supplemental jurisdiction over Smith's cross-claim because it
arises

out

of

the

interpleader action.

same

transaction

or

occurrence

as

the

See 28 U.S.C. § 1367; Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(g).

Finally, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Smith and Bacon
because they both reside in the state of Georgia.

(Compl., 3ISI 2-

3.)

C. Liability

Georgia law provides:

No person who commits murder or voluntary manslaughter
or who conspires with another to commit murder shall
receive any benefits from any insurance policy on the
life of the deceased, even though the person so killing
or conspiring be named beneficiary in the insurance
policy. A plea of guilty or a judicial finding of guilt
not reversed or otherwise set aside as to any of such
crimes shall be prima-facie evidence of guilt in
determining rights under this Code section.
O.C.G.A. § 33-25-13.

On March 25, 2019, after a jury trial in the Superior Court

of Liberty County, Georgia,

Bacon

was found guilty of felony

murder, aggravated assault, malice murder, and possession of a
firearm or knife during commission of or attempt to commit certain
crimes.

(See State v. Bacon, Case No. SUR2017000342 (Liberty Cty.

Super. Ct. March 25, 2019).)5

The Court takes judicial notice of

5 The docket for this case, including the jury verdict,
https://ww2.libertycountyga.com/publiccmwebsearch/.

can

be

found

at

the jury's guilty verdict in Bacon's criminal trial.

See Fed. R.

Evid. 201; see also 218 Charles Alan Wright and Kenneth W. Graham,
Jr., Federal Practice and Procedure § 5106.4, at 230 (2d ed. 2005)
(''[S]ince

the

enactment

of

Rule

201

federal

records of any court, state or federal.").

courts

notice

the

The judicial finding

of guilt provides prima facie evidence of Bacon's liability and
Smith's right to the Policy's benefits.

Because Bacon was found

guilty of murdering the Insured, he is precluded from receiving
any benefits.®

Therefore, Smith, as the lone remaining Defendant

and the Insured's heir at law, has established that he is entitled

to the Policy's benefits.
D. Damages

Where damages are for a ''sum certain" and the evidence in the
record clearly establishes those damages, a court need not conduct
an evidentiary hearing.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b); S.E.C. v. Smyth,

420 F. 3d 1225, 1232 n.l3 (11th Cir. 2005).

Here, damages are for

a sum certain — the Policy benefits and accrued interest — which
Prudential deposited into the Court's Registry.

Accordingly,

default judgment in that amount is proper.

6 Under O.C.G.A. § 53-1-5, Bacon also forfeits any interest in the Insured's

estate.

However, the Court applies O.C.G.A. § 33-25-13 because it specifically

relates to insurance benefits, instead of estates more generally.

either statute produces the same result in this case.

Regardless,

III. CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing. Defendant Eric C. Smith's motion for
entry of judgment (Doc. 17) is GRANTED.

The Clerk of Court is

directed to ENTER JUDGMENT in favor of Defendant Eric C. Smith in

the amount of $113,390.30.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk

disburse

the

to

Eric

C.

Smith

amount

of

$113,390.30

accrued interest from the Registry of the Court.

plus

any

Finally, the

Clerk is directed to TERMINATE any pending deadlines or motions
and CLOSE this case.

ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia, this

day of April,

2019.

J. RANDAL HALL, CHIEF JUDGE

[NITEp/STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN

DISTRICT OF GEORGIA