FIDELITY & GUARANTY LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY v. D'ALESSANDRO et al
Filing
14
OPINION fld. Signed by Judge William H. Walls on 5/17/16. (sr, )
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
FIDELITY & GUARANTY LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
OPINION
v.
DONNA D’ALESSANDRO and TERESA L.
HACKWORTH,
:
Civ. No. 15-cv-05281 (WHW)(CLW)
Defendants.
Walls. Senior District Judge
In this interpleader action, the pro se Claimant Donna D’Alessandro asserts a claim to the
proceeds of an annuity certificate issued by Plaintiff Fidelity & Guaranty Life Insurance
Company (“Fidelity”). In a previous order, the Court recharacterized Claimant D’Alessandro’s
claim as a request for entry of default and motion for default judgment. Decided without oral
argument under Fed. R. Civ. P. 78, Claimant D’Alessandro’s motion for default judgment is
granted.
BACKGROUND
The factual history of the case is described in this Court’s December 2, 2015 opinion
granting Plaintiff Fidelity’s motion to deposit funds and incorporated by reference here. ECF No.
6 at 1-3. In short, Claimants Donna D’Alessandro and Teresa L. Hackworth are the potential
beneficiaries of annuity certificate L915 1634, issued by Plaintiff Fidelity to Decedent Gerald V.
D’Alessandro on April 1, 2007. Complaint, ECF No. 1
¶J 1-7.
Claimant Donna D’Alessandro,
the ex-wife of Gerald D’Alessandro, was the original beneficiary of the certificate. Id.
1
¶ 7.
On
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
May 11, 2015, Fidelity received a request to make Claimant Hackworth the beneficiary of the
certificate but did not process the request because Gerald D’Alessandro’s signature on the
request did not match the one on his policy application. Id.
May 17, 2015. Id.
¶ 8.
Gerald D’Alessandro died on
¶ 9. After receiving a claim for the annuity certificate funds from Claimant
Donna D’Alessandro and additional documents purporting to support the change-of-beneficiary
request from Claimant Hackworth on May 20, 2015, Fidelity filed an interpleader complaint
naming Donna D’Alessandro and Teresa Hackworth as defendants and seeking to deposit the
funds with this Court and be discharged from any further liability to either Claimant. ECF No. 1.
On January 15, 2016, the Court granted Fidelity permission to deposit funds in the total amount
of $9,721.48, representing the value of the annuity certificate, minus $2,500 in authorized costs
and legal fees (“the Funds”), ECF No. 9, and Fidelity did so on March 17, 2016. ECF No. 11.
On February 18, 2016, Claimant Donna D’Alessandro filed apro se letter with this Court
asserting her claim to the Funds. ECF No. 10. Donna D’Alessandro states that she and Gerald
D’Alessandro purchased the annuity certificate after their divorce in 2007 and listed Donna
D’Alessandro as the beneficiary with the understanding that the funds would be used to pay
primarily for Gerald D’Alessandro’s cremationlmemorial arrangements. Id. at 1. Any remainder
would be given by Donna D’Alessandro to their two children, Nicholas and Amanda
D’Alessandro. Id. Claimant Donna D’Alessandro states that she visited Gerald D’Alessandro in a
hospice on May 10, 2015, the day before he allegedly submitted the Teresa Hackworth change
of-beneficiary request to Fidelity, and that he did not mention the request. Id. At that point,
according to Donna D’Alessandro, Gerald D’Alessandro had received administered morphine for
three days and was “in and out,” and any attempt to change the beneficiary of the annuity
certificate did not occur when he was “of sound mind.” Id. Donna D’Alessandro states that she
2
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
paid for Gerald D’Alessandro’s cremation with her own funds, expecting to be repaid with the
funds from the annuity certificate, but that she has been informed the account is “on hold”
pending the resolution of this matter. Id.
On March 22, 2016, the Court issued an order “recharacterizing” Claimant
D’Alessandro’s letter as a request for default and motion for default judgment against Claimant
Hackworth under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55. ECF No. 12 at 3-4 (citing Castro v. United States, 540 U.S.
375, 38 1-82 (2003)). To ensure that Claimant Hackworth was aware of D’Alessandro’s letter
motion for default judgment and had an opportunity to respond and assert her own claim to the
funds, the Court:
1. Ordered Claimant D’Alessandro to serve copies of her letter motion for default judgment,
ECF No. 10, and the Court’s order, ECF No. 12, on Claimant Hackworth by U.S. mail;
2. Ordered Claimant D’Alessandro to file a signed certification stating that she had served
Claimant Hackworth with the letter motion and order and requesting the Clerk of Court to
enter default against Claimant Hackworth; and
3. Ordered Claimant Hackworth to respond to Claimant D’Alessandro’s letter motion within
twenty-one (21) days of the filing of Claimant D’Alessandro’s certification.
ECF No.12 at4.
On April 4, 2016, Claimant D’Alessandro filed a certification of service and request for
entry of default. ECF No. 13. The Clerk of Court entered default against Claimant Hackworth on
April 26, 2016.
More than 21 days have passed since Claimant D’Alessandro filed the certification of
service, and Claimant Hackworth has not entered an appearance, opposed Claimant
3
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
D’Alessandro’s letter motion for default judgment, or otherwise asserted her claim to the Funds.
The Court will now address the motion for default judgment.
STANDARD FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT
When evaluating a motion for default judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 55, courts in the
Third Circuit consider three factors: (1) whether there is prejudice to the plaintiff if default is
denied, (2) whether the defendant appears to have a litigable defense, and (3) whether
defendant’s delay is due to culpable conduct. Chamberlain v. Giampapa, 210 F.3d 154, 164 (3d
Cir. 2000). A court must treat “the factual allegations in a complaint, other than those as to
damages.
.
.
as conceded by the defendant.” DIRECTV, Inc. v. Pepe, 431 F.3d 162, 165 (3d Cir.
2005). A court must also make “an independent inquiry into whether the unchallenged facts
constitute a legitimate cause of action” and “must make an independent determination” regarding
questions of law. See Days Inn Worldwide, Inc. v. Mayu & Roshan, L.L.C., No. 06-158 1, 2007
WL 1674485, at *4 (D.N.J. June 8, 2007) (citations omitted). Similarly, a court does not accept
as true allegations pertaining to the amount of damages, and may employ various methods to
ascertain the amount of damages due. While the court may conduct a hearing to determine the
damages amount, fed. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2), a damages determination may be made without a
hearing “as long as [the court] ensure[s] that there [is] a basis for the damages specified in the
default judgment.” Transatlantic Marine Claims Agency, Inc. v. Ace Shipping Corp., 109 F.3d
105, 111 (2dCir. 1997).
DISCUSSION
I.
Default judgment is appropriate.
An interpleader action generally proceeds in two stages. “First, the Court must determine
whether the interpleader complaint was properly brought and whether to discharge the
4
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
stakeholder from further liability to the claimants.” Stonebridge Life Ins. Co. v. Kissinger, 89 F.
Supp. 3d 622, 626 (D.N.J. 2015) (citing Prudential Ins. Co. ofAm. v. Hovis, 553 F.3d 258, 262
(3d Cir. 2009)). The Court has done this, granting Fidelity’s motion to deposit the Funds and be
discharged from liability with respect to the Funds. ECF No. 6; ECF No. 9 (amending ECF No. 6
to correct value of the Funds). “Second, the Court must determine the rights of the claimants to
the funds.” Stonebridge Life Ins. Co., 89 F. Supp. 3d at 626 (citing Prudential Ins. Co. ofAm.,
553 F.3d at 262).
Claimant Donna D’Alessandro’s February 18, 2016 letter motion addresses this second
determination, asserting her right to the Funds. ECF No. 11. Claimant D’Alessandro alleges that
she was the original beneficiary of the Funds, ECF No. 10 at 1, a claim that is consistent with the
allegation in Fidelity’s complaint. ECF No. 1
belief that the “beneficiary change attempt.
.
¶ 7.
.
Claimant Donna D’Alessandro also states her
happened while [Gerald D’Alessandro] was [not]
of sound mind” because “he was dying, stressed and under the influence of morphine.” ECF No.
10 at 1. In any event, Fidelity states that it last received “illegible copies of documents” in
support of the beneficiary change request on May 20, 2015, ECF No. 1
¶ 11, but did not
complete the change of beneficiary. Fidelity does not report having received any further
documentation in support of the request, see Id., and Claimant Hackworth states that she
“understand[s] this case will be uncontested.” ECF No. 10 at 2. The Court finds that Claimant
D’Alessandro has asserted a valid right to the Funds.
Under the Chamberlain factors, default judgment is appropriate. Claimant D’Alessandro
will suffer prejudice if default is denied because the Funds were intended to cover Gerald
D’Alessandro’s cremation, memorial service, and newspaper obituary expenses. Claimant
D’Alessandro and her children have paid for these services out-of-pocket, and she has waited
5
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
CLOSE
nearly a year for reimbursement. ECF No. 10 at 1-2. Claimant Hackworth has not presented any
facts or arguments to suggest that she has a valid claim to the Funds. It is not clear if Claimant
Hackworth’s failure to litigate is the result of willful or bad faith conduct, but she has failed to
retain counsel or otherwise respond in the nine months since the filing of the complaint. Having
considered these three factors, the Court finds that default judgment is appropriate.
II.
The amount of the Funds is satisfactorily established.
On January 15, 2016, the Court issued an order granting Fidelity permission to deposit
the Funds (in the total amount of $9,721.48 plus applicable interest, minus $2,500 in authorized
costs an attorneys’ fees) into the Court Registry. ECF No. 9. On March 17, 2016, the Clerk
issued a certificate of a cash deposit from Fidelity in the amount of $7,289.98. ECF No. 11.
Claimant D’Alessandro asserts her claim to the Funds and does not contest this amount.
CONCLUSION
Claimant D’Alessandro’s letter motion for default judgment is granted. The Clerk of
Court shall enter judgment in favor of Claimant D’Alessandro and authorize payment of the
deposited Funds to her. An appropriate order follows.
DATE:/%I
William H. Walls
Senior United States District Court Judge
6
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?