Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Dobbins et al

Filing 91

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting 87 MOTION to Compel Return of Registry Funds filed by Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. (Ordered by Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 7/23/2019) (Senior Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiffs
VS.
LANCE DOBBINS, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:16-CV-0854-D
§
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
In this interpleader action, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), as
receiver for The Bank of Union, El Reno, Oklahoma (“Bank of Union”), moves the court to
compel L&R Cattle, LLC (“L&R”) to return certain funds to the court registry. For the
reasons that follow, the court grants the FDIC’s motion.
I
This case is already the subject of prior memorandum opinions and orders. See, e.g.,
Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Dobbins, 2018 WL 550516, at *1-3 (N.D. Tex. Jan. 25, 2018)
(Fitzwater, J.). The court will therefore recount only the background facts and procedural
history that are pertinent to this decision.
At issue are the proceeds of a life insurance policy (“the Policy”) that insured the life
of decedent Larry Dobbins (“Dobbins”). See id. at *1. Dobbins, during his lifetime,
assigned the proceeds of the Policy to Bank of Union as collateral for a loan. See id. at *2.
When Dobbins died, both the FDIC (on behalf of Bank of Union) and the Policy’s

beneficiary, L&R, asserted an interest in the funds. See id. Plaintiff Jackson National Life
Insurance Company, the insurer, interpleaded the proceeds into the court registry pending
resolution of these competing claims. See id. This court ruled that the assignment to Bank
of Union was invalid and entered summary judgment in favor of L&R. See id. at *9. The
Fifth Circuit reversed in relevant part and rendered judgment in favor of the FDIC. See
Jackson Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Dobbins (Jackson Int’l II), 761 Fed. Appx. 389, 396 (5th Cir.
2019) (per curiam).
By the time the Fifth Circuit issued its mandate, the clerk of this court had already
wired the Policy proceeds to L&R. In response to a demand letter from the FDIC, L&R
wired most—but not all—of the proceeds to the FDIC, asserting that it was entitled to a
$76,130.11 offset for premiums that it paid during Dobbins’ lifetime. This claim echoes an
alternative argument that L&R raised in its motion for summary judgment. L&R did not,
however, re-urge this argument in its briefing on appeal. The FDIC now moves to compel
L&R to return its purported offset to the court registry, so that the FDIC may collect it.
II
In an interpleader action, a district court may “make all appropriate orders to enforce
its judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 2361. This includes the power to compel the return of registry
funds for appropriate disposition. See, e.g., Muncy v. City of Dallas, 128 Fed. Appx. 404,
404 (5th Cir. 2005) (per curiam) (denying rehearing).
The parties focus their briefing on whether claim preclusion prevents L&R from
relitigating its offset argument, but the issues are better framed in terms of the mandate rule.
-2-

The mandate rule requires this court on remand to implement both the letter and spirit of the
Fifth Circuit’s mandate, and it precludes the court from disregarding the explicit directives
of the Fifth Circuit. See United States v. Becerra, 155 F.3d 740, 753 (5th Cir. 1998),
abrogated on other grounds as recognized in United States v. Farias, 481 F.3d 289, 291-92
(5th Cir. 2007). “The mandate rule simply embodies the proposition that a district court is
not free to deviate from the appellate court’s mandate.” Id. (internal quotation marks and
citations omitted).
The Fifth Circuit, in its mandate, did not designate any matters for further
consideration by this court; instead, it rendered judgment in favor of the FDIC. See Jackson
Int’l II, 761 Fed. Appx. at 396. The Fifth Circuit’s opinion explains the effect of that
judgment: “the FDIC is entitled to the entire amount of proceeds.” Id. at 395 (emphasis
added). Under the mandate rule, this court is bound by the Fifth Circuit’s unambiguous
command, and must implement it. See Becerra, 155 F.3d at 753. This obligates the court
to order that the FDIC recover the sum of $76,130.11 that L&R failed to return to the court
registry.
*

*

*

For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the FDIC’s motion to compel. L&R is
hereby ordered to return the sum of $76,130.11 to the court registry within 14 days of the
date this memorandum opinion and order is filed. The clerk is, in turn, directed to wire that

-3-

sum, plus any accrued interest, to the FDIC after receipt and in accordance with the usual
procedures.
SO ORDERED.
July 23, 2019.

_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
SENIOR JUDGE

-4-