Unicare Life & Health Insurance Company v. Kollore et al

Filing 27

ORDER re: (1) subject-matter jurisdiction and (2) granting 23 Motion for Interpleader / Deposit / Dismissal. See attached for details. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Reagan on 8/13/2015. (jls)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
UNICARE LIFE & HEALTH
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
LONDON D. KOLLORE, AS
EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF
LOWELL A. KOLLORE, LAMONT
KOLLORE, SAMETHEL D. KOLLORE,
PERRY J. BROWN FUNERAL HOME,
LLC, PAUL LANE FUNERAL HOME,
INC., AND C&J FINANCIAL, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 15-cv-0283-MJR-PMF

ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION FOR INTERPLEADER, DEPOSIT OF
DISPUTED FUNDS, AND DISMISALL OF UNICARE WITH PREJUDICE
In this case, Unicare Life & Health Insurance Company—an insurance company
holding possession of a life insurance policy (“the Death Benefit”) for Lowell A.
Kollore—has filed a complaint in interpleader. Plaintiff alleges that, upon the passing of
Mr. Kollore, claims against the Death Benefit have been made by two of his children
(Defendant London and Lamont Kollore), along with three private entities (Perry J.
Brown Funeral Home, LLC; Paul Lane Funeral Home, Inc.; and C&J Financial, LLC).
The case comes before the Court on two related matters: the Court’s jurisdiction, and a
joint motion for interpleader / deposit of funds / dismissal.

Interpleader is an equitable procedure used when a 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). Plaintiff has brought this case via statutory
interpleader, 28 U.S.C. § 1335, which provides federal courts an independent basis for
asserting subject-matter jurisdiction. Id. Two conditions must be met for jurisdiction via
§ 1335: the stakes must be deposited in the district court’s registry, and there must be
“minimal diversity” among the claimants (i.e., if any two claimants are citizens of
different states (as defined by § 1332)). 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a); State Farm Life Ins. Co. v.
Jonas, 775 F.3d 867, 869 (7th Cir. 2014).
As to depositing the funds in the Court’s registry, the undersigned has
considered the Parties’ unopposed Motion for Interpleader, Deposit of Disputed Funds,
and Dismissal of UniCare with Prejudice. That motion (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. UniCare
shall deposit the Death Benefit into the Registry of the Court with any applicable
interest within thirty (30) days of entry of this Order; and upon tendering the Death
Benefit and any applicable interest as required by law to the Registry of the Court,
UniCare is dismissed from this case with prejudice. At that point, UniCare, any plan
administrator, and any plan sponsor (including Ford Motor Company) are discharged
from any further claims, obligations, and/or liability under, arising from, or related to
Lowell Kollore’s Policy or the Death Benefit.

-2-

As to minimal diversity: the Court is satisfied it exists here—Paul Lane Funeral
Home is a New York citizen, London Kollore is an Illinois citizen—but offers a word of
caution to the litigants. The citizenship of the LLC parties (Perry Brown Funeral Home
and C&J Financial) is sloppily pled, since the Complaint only informs the Court they are
limited liability corporations organized under the laws of diverse states (North Carolina
and Alabama, respectively). But an LLC’s citizenship for diversity purposes depends on
the citizenship of each of its members, and the Complaint is silent on that point.
Thomas v. Guardsmark, LLC, 487 F.3d 531, 534 (7th Cir. 2007). In future cases, Plaintiff
should take heed that jurisdictional allegations involving non-natural persons will put
up “a jurisdictional warning flag” in federal district courts, and that LLC citizenship
should be alleged in accordance with the proper standards. Dexia Credit Local v.
Rogan, 629 F.3d 612, 620 (7th Cir. 2010).
In the end, the oversight makes no difference, since minimal diversity here is
established by the citizenship of corporate and individual parties. Accordingly, the
Court assigns this case a CJRA Track of

B . Tracking order and assignment of final

pretrial / trial dates to follow.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: August 13, 2015

s/ Michael J. Reagan
MICHAEL J. REAGAN
Chief Judge
U.S. District Court

-3-