Metropolitan Life Insurance Company v. Reynolds et al

Filing 30

SHOW CAUSE ORDER - No later than June 19, 2017, Defendants shall file a report with the Court advising as to why the funds at issue in this case should not be paid to Gail Reynolds. Failure to do so will result in a recommendation to United States Di strict Court Judge Robert Rossiter, Jr. that the funds be distributed to Gail Reynolds and that this action be dismissed. The Clerk of Court is directed to set a case management deadline using the following text: June 19, 2017: Show Cause Response Due.Show Cause Deadline set for 6/19/2017. Ordered by Magistrate Judge Susan M. Bazis. (CS)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
8:16CV281
Plaintiff,
SHOW CAUSE ORDER

vs.
GAIL A. REYNOLDS, TAMI REYNOLDS,
and LESLIE REYNOLDS,
Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on its own motion.

This interpleader action was filed by Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company on
June 20, 2016. (Filing No. 1.) The Complaint alleges that Michael Reynolds (“Decedent”), who
died on March 13, 2016, was an employee of the Burlington Northern Railroad and a participant
in the Railroad Employees National Health and Welfare Plan (the “Plan”). Generally, Plaintiff
requests that the Court determine the proper beneficiary of the Plan proceeds. The Complaint
names four defendants, including Decedent’s wife, Gail Reynolds, Decedent’s daughters, Tami
and Leslie Reynolds, and Decedent’s son, Paul Reynolds.

Counsel has not entered an appearance on behalf of any defendant. However, on August
18, 2016, Plaintiff submitted correspondence it purportedly received from Defendants Tami
Reynolds and Leslie Reynolds. (Filing No. 19.) The correspondence appears to respond to the
Complaint. In her response, Tami Reynolds states that she would like the Plan benefits to be
paid to Defendant Gail Reynolds. (Filing No. 19-1.) Leslie Reynolds indicates that she does not
care who receives the funds. (Filing No. 19-2.) Defendant Paul Reynolds did not respond to the
Complaint, and a default judgment was entered against him on May 16, 2017. (Filing No. 29.)

Plaintiff was previously granted leave to deposit the funds at issue in this action with the
Clerk of Court. (Filing Nos. 22, 24.) Plaintiff deposited $20,442.86 with the Clerk on March 6,
2017.

At this time, it appears this case is ready for final disposition. All defendants who have
responded to the Complaint have indicated that they want the Plan benefits to be paid to Gail
Reynolds or would not object to the benefits being paid to Gail Reynolds. Based on the current
posture of this case,

IT IS ORDERED as follows:

1.

No later than June 19, 2017, Defendants shall file a report with the Court advising

as to why the funds at issue in this case should not be paid to Gail Reynolds. Failure to do so
will result in a recommendation to United States District Court Judge Robert Rossiter, Jr. that the
funds be distributed to Gail Reynolds and that this action be dismissed.

2.

The Clerk of Court is directed to set a case management deadline using the

following text: June 19, 2017: Show Cause Response Due.

Dated this 18th day of May, 2017.
BY THE COURT:
s/ Susan M. Bazis
United States Magistrate Judge

2