Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00823/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-00823-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Interpleader Action

---

1 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISCHARGE IN INTERPLEADER AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IN 

FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT 

1358391v.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

AMERICAN GENERAL LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

 

 v. 

TINA MILINOVICH, PAULA HASKELL 

MIRAGLIA and I.G. MIRAGLIA, a minor 

Defendants. 

Case No.: 3:15-cv-00823-MMC 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISCHARGE 

IN INTERPLEADER AND DISMISSAL 

WITH PREJUDICE IN FAVOR OF 

PLAINTIFF AND COUNTERDEFENDANT AMERICAN GENERAL 

LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY 

 Upon reading the Stipulation for Entry of an Order of Discharge in Interpleader and 

Dismissal With Prejudice in Favor of Plaintiff and Counter-Defendant American General Life 

Insurance Company (“AGLIC”), it appearing that this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and 

the subject matter, and good cause appearing therefore, 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED as follows: 

1. That, on or about August 6, 2010, AGLIC issued policy number YM00717637 

insuring the life of David J. Miraglia, which provided a death benefit in the amount 

of $500,000 (hereinafter “the Policy”); 

2. That David J. Miraglia died on or about August 1, 2014 and the death benefit under 

the Policy became payable; 

3. That AGLIC received multiple and conflicting claims to the death benefit under the 

Policy, including claims from defendant, counter-claimant and cross-claimant Tina 

Case 3:15-cv-00823-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/27/15 Page 1 of 3
2 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISCHARGE IN INTERPLEADER AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IN 

FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT 

1358391v.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Milinovich (“defendant Milinovich”), defendant Paula Haskell Miraglia (“defendant 

P. Miraglia”) and defendant I.G. Miraglia, a minor (“defendant I.G. Miraglia”); 

4. That AGLIC contends that it was unable to safely pay the death benefit payable 

under the Policy without being exposed to multiple or double liability to the 

defendants; 

5. That AGLIC possessed a real and reasonable fear of double liability or conflicting 

claims related to the death benefit payable under the Policy; 

6. That on February 24, 2015, AGLIC filed a Complaint for Interpleader Relief in this 

Court; 

7. That on March 11, 2015, AGLIC deposited with the Court the total sum of $503, 

108.83, representing the death benefit plus accrued interested owed under the 

Policy; 

8. That this case is at issue, because defendant Milinovich filed an Answer, CounterClaim and Cross-Claim on April 2, 2015 and defendants P. Miraglia and I.G. 

Miraglia filed an Answer on April 24, 2015; 

9. That AGLIC is a disinterested stakeholder and is indifferent to which defendant or 

defendants are entitled to the death benefit payable under the Policy; 

10. That AGLIC is a citizen of the State of Texas, and all defendants are citizens of the 

State of California; 

11. That the amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000 because the Policy 

has a death benefit of $500,000; 

12. That this Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 1332, 

because AGLIC is diverse in citizenship from each and every defendant and the 

amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. 

“Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 permits interpleader actions if the amount in 

controversy exceeds $75,000 and if there is complete diversity between the 

stakeholder and all of the claimants, even if some of the claimants are citizens of the 

Case 3:15-cv-00823-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/27/15 Page 2 of 3
3 

[PROPOSED] ORDER OF DISCHARGE IN INTERPLEADER AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE IN 

FAVOR OF PLAINTIFF AND COUNTER-DEFENDANT 

1358391v.1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

same state.” Prudential Ins. Co. v. Wells, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43276, p. 2 (N.D. 

Cal. May 21, 2009); 

13. That AGLIC properly filed the Complaint for Interpleader Relief in this action and 

stated a proper cause for interpleader; 

14. That having brought this action and deposited with the Court the Policy proceeds 

plus accrued interest, in the amount of $503,108.83, AGLIC hereby is discharged 

from any and all liability to the defendants in this action based upon and/or with 

respect to the terms of the Policy, the death benefit payable under the Policy, the 

death of David J. Miraglia and/or the defendants’ claims for the death benefit 

payable under the Policy; 

15. That the defendants hereby are restrained and/or prohibited from instituting or 

prosecuting any proceeding in any state court, United States Court or administrative 

tribunal against AGLIC based upon and/or with respect to the terms of the Policy, 

the death benefit payable under the Policy, the death of David J. Miraglia and/or the 

defendants’ claims for the death benefit payable under the Policy; 

16. That an order of discharge in interpleader hereby is entered in favor of AGLIC in 

this action and as to all defendants; 

17. That AGLIC hereby is dismissed with prejudice from this action; 

18. That this action shall proceed between the defendants; and 

19. That all parties are to bear their own fees and costs with respect to the order for 

discharge in interpleader and dismissal with prejudice in favor of AGLIC. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

___________________________ 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY 

Date: April 27, 2015

Case 3:15-cv-00823-MMC Document 28 Filed 04/27/15 Page 3 of 3