Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Gray et al
Filing
57
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Magistrate Judge Charles B. Day on 8/18/2015. (c/m to pro se def 8/19/15 rs) (rss, Deputy Clerk)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Southern Division
METROPOLITAN LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*****
Plaintiff,
v.
SHARON GRAY, et al.,
Defendants.
Civil Action No.: CBD-13-1956
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before this Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Deposit Interpleader Property
Into the Registry of the Court (ECF No. 55) (“Plaintiff’s Motion”). The Court has
reviewed Plaintiff’s Motion and applicable law. No opposition has been filed. No
hearing is deemed necessary. See Local Rule 105.6 (D. Md.). For the reasons presented
below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion.
I.
Factual Background
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (“Plaintiff’) issued a life insurance policy
to Wanda Thomas (“Decedent”) on December 4, 2005. At the time, Decedent designated
her husband, Darryl Thomas, a resident of the District of Columbia, as the primary
beneficiary. On July 21, 2011, the primary beneficiary was changed online to Sharon
Jones, a resident of Maryland. When Decedent died on September 7, 2012, her life
insurance benefits of $50,000 plus interest became due and payable. Mr. Thomas alleges
in his Amended Complaint that Ms. Jones exercised undue influence over Decedent and
1
caused her to change the beneficiary of her policy. Mr. Thomas further claims to be the
lawfully designated beneficiary and asks this Court to compel Plaintiff to pay the life
insurance benefits to him. This Court granted Mr. Thomas’s motion to dismiss all of his
claims against Plaintiff on May 28, 2015, and there are no remaining claims against
Plaintiff in this case.
Plaintiff’s Motion asks this court to allow Plaintiff, as an interpleader, to 1) pay
the proceeds of the policy to the registry of the Court, 2) be discharged from the action,
and 3) be reimbursed for attorney fees incurred in filing Plaintiff’s Motion.
II.
Plaintiff May Deposit the Proceeds into the Court Registry
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that:
If any part of the relief sought is a money judgment or the disposition of a sum of
money or some other deliverable thing, a party—on notice to every other party
and by leave of court—may deposit with the court all or part of the money or
thing, whether or not that party claims any of it.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a). Here, the relief Defendant Thomas seeks includes “the disposition
of a sum of money.” Id. Plaintiff provides a certificate of service showing that it
provided notice to every other party that it has moved to deposit the funds into the
registry. Mem. in Supp. of Pl.’s Mot. 5, ECF 55-1. Finally, because there are no
remaining claims against Plaintiff, this Court will grant Plaintiff leave to pay the proceeds
of the policy into the Registry of the Court.
III.
Upon Deposit, Plaintiff May Be Discharged from this Action
In an interpleader action, this Court may “discharge the plaintiff from further
liability” where the requirements of the Federal Interpleader Act have been met. 28
U.S.C. § 2361, see also Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Davis, Civil No. JFM-10-2785,
2
2011 WL 2148714, at *6 (D. Md. May 31, 2011). The Federal Interpleader Act sets forth
three requirements—that:
1) [the action is] filed by any [party] having in his or its custody or possession
money or property of the value of $500 or more . . .
2) [the case involves] [t]wo or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship . . .
3) the plaintiff has deposited such money or property . . . into the registry of the
court.
28 U.S.C. § 1335. Plaintiff filed this action and states, in Plaintiff’s Motion, that it is in
possession of $50.013.14, which is well over the $500 requirement. Pl.’s Motion 1. The
case involves two diverse claimants as Mr. Thomas is a resident of the District of
Columbia and Ms. Jones is a resident of Maryland. Finally, this Court has granted
Plaintiff’s Motion to deposit the $50.013.14 into the Court registry. Thus, the
requirements of the Federal Interpleader Act will be met upon Plaintiff’s deposit of this
sum. Once the deposit is made, this Court may discharge Plaintiff from liability.
IV.
Plaintiff is Entitled to Attorney’s Fees
This Court has previously explained that “[g]enerally, in a federal interpleader
action, attorneys’ fees and costs are awarded only to the party who initiates interpleader
as a mere disinterested stakeholder.” Davis, 2011 WL 2148714, at *7. A disinterested
interpleader is allowed to recover attorney’s fees because “by seeking resolution of the
multiple claims to the proceeds,” they “benefit[] the claimants and [thus] should not have
to absorb attorneys’ fees in avoiding the possibility of multiple litigation.” Id. (citing
Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Outlaw, 411 F. Supp. 824, 826 (D. Md. 1976)).
Here, Plaintiff initiated the interpleader action. Moreover, because this Court
previously dismissed Defendant Thomas’s claim against Plaintiff, and no claims
remained against Plaintiff when it brought the interpleader action, Plaintiff “initiate[d]
3
interpleader as a mere disinterested stakeholder.” Davis, 2011 WL 2148714, at *7
(deeming Metropolitan Life Insurance a disinterested stakeholder after dismissing the
defendant’s claims against the insurance company). As such, Plaintiff is entitled to
attorney’s fees and costs.
V.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion and directs
Plaintiff to provide an affidavit specifying the reasonable attorney’s fees (pursuant to the
Local Rules of this Court) that Plaintiff seeks in filing Plaintiff’s Motion.
August 18, 2015
/s/
Charles B. Day
United States Magistrate Judge
CBD/sdh/erm
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?