Tuesno-Evans v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America

Filing 23

ORDER granting in part Prudential's Motion; instructing Prudential to submit a bill for costs and attorney's fees; instructing parents of minors to obtain an order from the chancery court appointing a guardian ad litem.(PL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
LAKEISHA TUESNO-EVANS,

Plaintiff

v.

Civil Action No. 5:12-cv-125-DCB-RHW

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant & Third Party Plaintiff

v.
LINDA L. NEALY AND LOUIS E. NEALY as
Parents and next friends of K.N., a minor,
LAKEISHA TUESNO-EVANS, individually and as mother and
next friend of L.E., a minor, KANDICE
GREEN RIGGS and BATEASTE MEMORIAL
FUNERAL HOME,
Third Party Defendants
ORDER
Before the Court is Prudential Insurance Company of America’s
Motion to Appoint a Guardian ad Litem, Motion to Interplead, and
Motion to Dismiss. Prudential also requests costs and attorney’s
fees. The Plaintiff and Third Party Defendants have not responded
to this Motion within the time allotted by the local rules. Having
considered

the

matter,

the

Court

will

grant

Prudential

its

requested relief in part.
FACTS
This matter arises from a dispute over the proceeds of Group
Life

Insurance

Policy

Number

G-51339

(the

“Plan”)

issued

by

Prudential to Ingram Industries, Inc.1 As an employee of Ingram
Industries,
1

Inc.,

Kenric

Evans

(“Insured”)

was

eligible

for

Because Prudential’s Motion is unopposed, the Facts and
Procedural History are taken in large part from its brief.

coverage under the Plan. Upon the death of the Insured, Plan death
benefits in the amount of $86,000.00 became due and payable to a
beneficiary or beneficiaries (the “Death Benefit”). The parties to
the

dispute

are

LaKeisha

Evans,

the

Insured’s

former

wife,

individually and as mother and next friend of L.E., the Insured’s
minor daughter; Linda Nealy and Louis Nealy, as parents and next
friends of K.N., the Insured’s minor son; Kandice Riggs, the
Insured’s

sister;

and

Bateaste

Memorial

Funeral

Home,

LLC

(collectively the “Adverse Claimants”). The Insured originally
designated LaKeisha Evans, his wife at the time, as 50% primary
beneficiary, K.N., son, as 25% primary beneficiary, L.E., daughter,
as 25% primary beneficiary to the Plan, and Linda Tuesno (“Nealy”),
his mother-in-law, as 100% contingent beneficiary to the Plan. See
Doc. 5, Exhibit “A”. By letter dated November 20, 2007, the Insured
changed the 50% primary beneficiary of the Plan from LaKeisha Evans
to his sister, Kandice Riggs, and the 100% contingent beneficiary
of the Plan from Linda Tuesno to his mother, Linda Evans Jackson.
See Doc. 5, Exhibit “B”. This dispute concerns the proper primary
beneficiary to 50% of the Death Benefit. The parties do not dispute
the designation of K.N. and L.E. as each a 25% primary beneficiary
to the Plan.
The Insured died on April 19, 2012. By Beneficiary Statement
dated April 20, 2012, LaKeisha Evans made a claim for the Death
Benefit. See Doc. 5, Exhibit “C”. By Beneficiary Statement dated

2

April 26, 2012, Kandice Riggs made a claim for the Death Benefit.
See Doc. 5, Exhibit “E”. By Beneficiary Statements dated June 12,
2012, LaKeisha Evans made claims for the Death Benefit on behalf of
K.N. and L.E. See Doc. 5, Exhibit “G”. By Insurance Proceeds
Assignment dated April 20, 2012, LaKeisha Evans attempted to assign
a portion of the Death Benefit in the amount of $6,830.00 to
Bateaste Funeral Home for services rendered in connection with the
death of the Insured. See Doc. 5, Exhibit “D”. By Insurance
Proceeds Assignment dated April 26, 2012, Kandice Riggs attempted
to assign a portion of the Death Benefit in the amount of $9,986.00
to Bateaste Funeral Home for services rendered in connection with
the death of the Insured (together, the “Funeral Assignment”). See
Doc. 5, Exhibit “F”. By letters dated July 17, 2012, Prudential
informed LaKeisha Evans that K.N. and L.E. were named beneficiaries
to the Plan, and that in order to process their claims, Prudential
required a court order appointing a guardian of the property or
estate of the minor beneficiaries and a completed Settlement Option
3 Form. See Doc. 5, Exhibit “I”. Because court-ordered guardians
have not been appointed for L.N. and K.E., Prudential is unable to
pay out 25% of the Death Benefit to L.N. and 25% of the Death
Benefit to K.E. Because of the competing claims of LaKeisha Evans
and Kandice Riggs, Prudential cannot determine factually or legally
who

is

entitled

to

the

remaining

50%

of

the

Death

Benefit.

Additionally, counsel for Prudential attempted to facilitate an

3

agreement among the Defendants to pay the Bateaste Funeral Home in
accordance with the Funeral Assignment. However, the parties have
been unable to agree as to whether the payment to the funeral home
should come out of the entire Death Benefit, or out of the 50% of
the Death Benefit that is in dispute.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On or about August 15, 2012, Plaintiff commenced this civil
action in the Chancery Court of Adams County, Mississippi, seeking
a

preliminary

injunction

and

temporary

restraining

order

to

restrain Prudential from paying out the Death Benefit. See Doc. 1,
Exhibit “A”. On September 11, 2012, Prudential removed the state
court action to the present Court. See Doc. 1. On September 14,
2012, Prudential filed its Answer and Third Party Complaint in
Interpleader against the Adverse Claimants so that this Court may
determine which of the Defendants is entitled to receive the funds
at issue. See Doc. 5. On October 4, 2012, LaKeisha Evans filed her
Answer to the Third Party Complaint. See Doc. 6. On October 23,
2012, Prudential served Kandice Riggs with a copy of the Summons
and Third Party Complaint. See Doc. 10. On October 23, 2012,
Prudential served the Bateaste Funeral Home with a copy of the
Summons and Third Party Complaint. See Doc. 12. On November 20,
2012, Kandice Riggs, who is preceding pro se, filed her Answer to
the Third Party Complaint. See Doc. 15. On January 4, 2013,
Prudential served Linda and Louis Nealy with a copy of the Summons

4

and Third Party Complaint. See Docs. 18, 19. To date, Bateaste
Funeral Home, Linda Nealy, and Louis Nealy have not filed Answers
or otherwise responded to Prudential’s Third Party Complaint.
ANALYSIS
The Court must first examine whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction over the present cause. See Franceskin v. Credit
Suisse, 214 F.3d 253, 255 (2d Cir. 2000). Prudential states that
this Court has either federal-question jurisdiction under ERISA, 29
U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B), or diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332. The Court agrees that both statutes establish jurisdiction
for this Rule 22 interpleader.2 While federal-question jurisdiction
is rare in interpleader, Wright, Miller & Kane Federal Practice and
Procedure: Civil 3d § 1710, in a removal case similar to the one at
bar the Ninth Circuit held that ERISA does confer jurisdiction. See
Gelfgren v. Republic Nat. Life Ins. Co., 680 F.2d 79, 82 (9th Cir.
1982). Even without federal-question jurisdiction, this Court has
jurisdiction because the amount in controversy is greater than
$75,000 and the citizenship of the adverse claimants is diverse
from that of the stakeholder. Travelers Ins. Co. v. First Nat. Bank
of Shreveport, 675 F.2d 633, 638 n.9 (5th Cir. 1982) (“[F]ederal
courts have been uniform in holding that jurisdiction exists (over
Rule 22 interpleaders brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1332) when the

2

This Court does not have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 1335 because the adverse claimants have the same citizenship.
5

citizenship of the plaintiff (stakeholder) is diverse from that of
all

defendants

(claimants),

despite

the

fact

that

as

among

themselves the claimants are not citizens of different states”).
Having established jurisdiction, the Court further finds that
Prudential, as an impartial stakeholder, should be allowed to
deposit the Death Benefit funds into the Court’s registry and be
dismissed from the case. The Court also agrees that it is necessary
to appoint a guardian ad litem for the minors so that they may be
able to receive their percentage of the fund. As for attorney’s
fees, courts generally award the stakeholder costs and modest fees
as long as the stakeholder does not act in bad faith or with undue
delay. See Wright, Miller & Kane Federal Practice and Procedure:
Civil 3d § 1719. Here, while the Court has some concerns about
depleting the Death Benefit funds owed to the true beneficiaries
because of a potentially frivolous claim, the record indicates that
Prudential has acted quickly and in good faith. The Court will
therefore award Prudential costs and modest fees for its efforts
and will consider whether the fund should be replenished by the
losing Adverse Claimant after the Court determines the proper
beneficiaries of the fund. See Hunter v. Fed. Life Ins. Co., 111
F.2d 551, 557 (8th Cir. 1940) (“The remedy of interpleader should,
of course, be a simple, speedy, efficient and economical remedy.
Under ordinary circumstances there would be no justification for
seriously depleting the fund deposited in court by a stakeholder

6

through the allowance of large fees to his counsel.”); Prudential
Ins. Co. of Am. v. Boyd, 781 F.2d 1494, 1498 (11th Cir. 1986)
(stating that the fund can be replenished by the losing claimant if
she acted in bad faith in making a claim on the fund).
ORDERS
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Prudential shall submit a bill for
costs and attorney’s fees to the Court withing ten days of entry of
this Order. After the Court has determined whether the amount of
attorney’s

fees

is

reasonably

modest,

the

Court

will

direct

Prudential to deposit the Death Benefit, plus claim interest, if
any, less costs and attorney’s fees, in the Court’s registry and
dismiss Prudential from this case;
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of
entry of this order Linda L. Nealy and Louis E. Nealy, as parents
and next friends of K.N., shall obtain and file with this Court an
order from the Chancery Court of Adams County, Mississippi, or any
other state court with jurisdiction to enter such order, appointing
a guardian for K. N. so that the Court can disburse the funds, as
set forth above;
IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that within fourteen days of
entry of this order Lakisha Tuesno-Evans, as mother and next friend
of L.E., shall obtain and file with this Court an order from the
Chancery Court of Adams County, Mississippi, or any other state
court with jurisdiction to enter such order, appointing a guardian
7

for L.E. so that the Court can disburse the funds, as set forth
above.
Once the Parties have complied with these Orders, the Court
will proceed to determine how the funds shall be distributed among
the claimants.
So ORDERED, this the 17th day of July, 2013.

/s/ David Bramlette
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8