Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Johnson, Sr. et al

Filing 66

WRITTEN Opinion entered by the Honorable John W. Darrah on 4/11/2013: For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Danny Johnson, Sr.s Motion for Summary Judgment 57 is granted. Mailed notice (For further detail see Written Opinion)(nf, )

Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois
Name of Assigned Judge
or Magistrate Judge

John W. Darrah

CASE NUMBER

11-cv-8210

CASE
TITLE

Sitting Judge if Other
than Assigned Judge

DATE

4/11/13

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Johnson, Sr. et al

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT

For the reasons set forth below, Defendant Danny Johnson, Sr.’s Motion for Summary Judgment [57] is
granted.

[ For further details see text below.]

Docketing to mail notices.

STATEMENT
Before the Court is Danny Johnson, Sr.’s (“Johnson”)’s Motion for Summary Judgment. This case
involves a dispute over the payment of death benefits from a life insurance policy issued by MetLife to the
Geraldine Johnson Estate (“Decedent”) in the amount of $178,000. On November 17, 2011, MetLife initiated
an interpleader action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 against Johnson, Danny Johnson, Jr.
(“Danny”) and Deanna Johnson (“Deanna”). On March 6, 2012, MetLife filed a Motion to Deposit Funds
and for Dismissal with Prejudice. Johnson subsequently filed a Counterclaim against MetLife. Danny and
Deanna have not filed appearances in this case. MetLife’s Motion was granted as to MetLife’s request to
deposit funds, and, on March 23, 2012, MetLife deposited funds in the amount of $91,673.65 with the Clerk
of the Court. (See Dkt. No. 18.) On June 13, 2012, this Court dismissed MetLife with prejudice from the
interpleader action but held that MetLife remained a party to Johnson’s Counterclaim.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, No. 11-cv-8210, 2012 WL 2192283, *5 (N.D. Ill. June 13, 2012)
(Metropolitan Life Ins. Co.) Johnson filed an Amended Counterclaim on June 13, 2012, alleging breach of
contract (Counterclaim Count I) and breach of the Illinois Insurance Code (Count II). On January 24, 2013,
this Court denied MetLife’s Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. (See Dkt. No. 54.)
On March 13, 2013, Johnson filed a stipulation pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41 that dismissed his
Counterclaim against MetLife. On March 27, 2013, this Court granted Johnson’s Motion for a Default Order
against Danny and Deanna because those Defendants had not filed appearances or answered MetLife’s
Complaint, despite being served. (See Dkt. No. 63.) Accordingly, Johnson is the only party remaining in this
action.
Summary judgment is appropriate when the “pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file,
and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). A genuine issue of material fact exists when, based on
the evidence, a reasonable jury could find in favor of the non-moving party. Shank v. William R. Hague, Inc.,
192 F.3d 675, 681 (7th Cir. 1999).

Page 1 of 2

“Interpleader is an equitable procedure used when the stakeholder is in danger of exposure to double
liability or the vexation of litigating conflicting claims.” Aaron v. Mahl, 550 F.3d 659, 663 (7th Cir. 2008).
There are two distinct states for resolution of interpleader cases. “During the first stage, the court determines
whether the interpleader complaint was properly brought and whether to discharge the stakeholder from
further liability to the claimants. During the second stage, the court determines the respective rights of the
claimants to the interpleaded funds.” Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hovis, 553 F.3d 258, 262 (3d Cir. 2009)
(Prudential Ins. Co.) (internal citations omitted).
In its June 13, 2012 Order, this Court dismissed MetLife from the interpleader proceeding because
MetLife was a disinterested stakeholder and had already deposited the funds with the Clerk of the Court.
Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 2012 WL 2192283, at *5. Now that Johnson has dismissed his Counterclaim
against MetLife, there are no other actions pending before this Court, and the Court must determine the rights
of any claimants to the funds. See Prudential Ins. Co., 553 F.2d at 262.
Johnson is the only person who has asserted a claim to those funds. This Court has entered a Default
Order against the other Defendants, and there are no other competing claims to those funds. There are no
issues of material fact that would preclude awarding Johnson the insurance benefits that have been deposited
with the Clerk of the Court.
Accordingly, Johnson’s Motion for Summary Judgment [57] is granted, and judgment is entered in
favor of Johnson. The Clerk of the Court is ordered to pay Johnson the amount of $91, 673.65, except that
the Clerk shall deduct the $385.38 awarded MetLife in costs by this Court’s June 13, 2012 Order and add the
appropriate amount of interest that has accrued since March 23, 2012. The civil case is terminated.

Page 2 of 2