Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01253/USCOURTS-azd-2_13-cv-01253-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 29:1132 E.R.I.S.A.-Employee Benefits

---

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 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company,

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Rosina Reynolds and Marlene Reynolds, 

Defendants.

No. CV-13-01253-PHX-BSB

ORDER 

 Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) has filed a motion in 

this interpleader action requesting: (1) an order directing the Clerk of Court to accept the 

$161,100.00 Plan Benefits at issue for placement in an interest bearing account;1

 (2) an 

order enjoining Defendants from initiating any action or proceeding in any federal or 

state court against MetLife for the recovery of Plan Benefits by reason of the death of 

Michael Reynolds; (3) an order dismissing MetLife with prejudice from this action and 

discharging it from any further liability upon payment of the Plan Benefits into the 

registry of this Court; and (4) an order awarding MetLife its costs and reasonable 

attorneys’ fees incurred in bringing this interpleader action. (Doc. 23.) 

 

1

 Plaintiff’s motion identifies the Plan Benefits as $161,000.00 (Doc. 23 at 1, 2, 4, 5), $161,100.00 (Id. at 2), and $168,000.00 (Id. at 6). However, the Complaint and the Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management Report state that the Plan Benefits are $161,100.00. 

Because the amount of the Plan Benefits is not identified as a disputed issue in the Joint Case Management Report, the Court uses the $161,100.00 figure that appears in the Complaint and the Joint Case Management Report. (Doc. 1¶12; Doc. 22 at 2.) 

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 1 of 9
- 2 - 

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 

 Although Defendants Rosina Reynolds and Marlene Reynolds have not 

specifically responded to the pending motion, the Rule 26(f) Joint Case Management 

Report indicates that they do not object to the Court ordering MetLife to deposit the Plan 

Benefits plus accrued interest into the Court’s registry and dismissing MetLife from this 

action. (Doc. 22 at 3-4.) Accordingly, the Court will consider, without requiring further 

briefing, whether to direct MetLife to deposit the disputed funds into the Court’s registry, 

whether to dismiss MetLife from this lawsuit, and whether to enjoin Defendants from 

initiating further litigation against MetLife regarding the disputed funds. Additionally, 

MetLife states that counsel for each Defendant has advised that they do not object to 

MetLife’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs. (Doc. 23 at 5.) Thus, the Court will also 

consider the request for attorneys’ fees and costs without additional briefing. 

I. Background 

 On June 24, 2013, MetLife filed the Complaint in interpleader pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1335 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, requesting that this Court 

determine the rightful beneficiary of an insurance policy. (Doc. 1.) MetLife named 

Rosina Reynolds and Marlene Reynolds as Defendants. MetLife asserts that Decedent 

Michael Reynolds was an employee of Alcatel-Lucent and a participant his employer’s 

Group Life Insurance Plan for Retired Employees (the Plan), an ERISA regulated 

employee welfare benefit plan sponsored by Alcatel-Lucent and funded by a group life 

insurance policy issued by MetLife. 

 Upon Decedent’s death on May 1, 2012, life insurance proceeds became payable 

in the amount of $161,100.00 (the Plan Benefits). (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 11, 12.) According to the 

terms of the Plan, MetLife must pay benefits to the Decedent’s named beneficiary, who is 

his ex-wife Rosina Reynolds. She asserted a claim for the Plan Benefits on July 19, 

2012. (Doc. 1 ¶¶ 12, 16.) Defendant Marlene Reynolds, also an ex-wife of the Decedent, 

asserted a claim to the Plan Benefits on May 17, 2012. (Doc. 1 ¶ 14.) Her claim is based 

on a November 1, 1990 Marital Settlement Agreement incorporated into her Decree of 

Dissolution of Marriage that required the Decedent to “obtain and maintain, through his 

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 2 of 9
- 3 - 

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 

employment or otherwise, life insurance on his life with coverage in the amount of 

$197,000.00, and to name [Marlene Reynolds] as the beneficiary of that life insurance.” 

(Doc. 22 at 3.) Marlene Reynolds asserts that the November 1, 1990 Decree of 

Dissolution pre-empts the Plan beneficiary designation and, therefore, she is entitled to 

the Plan Benefits. (Id.) 

 MetLife filed this interpleader action because of these competing claims to the 

Plan Benefits. In the pending motion, MetLife seeks an order permitting it to deposit the 

disputed Plan Benefits with the Clerk of Court, dismissing MetLife from the action with 

prejudice upon deposit of the Plan Benefits, enjoining Defendants from commencing or 

prosecuting any other action regarding the policy benefit on the life of Mr. Reynolds in 

any other federal or state court, and awarding MetLife its attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in this action.2

 (Doc. 1 at 4-5.) 

II. Legal Standards and Analysis 

 “Interpleader is a procedural device used to resolve conflicting claims to money or 

property. It enables a person or entity in possession of a tangible res or fund of money 

(the stakeholder) to join in a single suit two or more claimants asserting mutually 

exclusive claims to that stake.” Nevada v. Pioneer Cos., Inc., 245 F Supp.2d 1120, 1125 

(D. Nev. 2003) (quoting 4 James Wm. Moore, et al., Moore’s Federal Practice

§ 22.02[1] (3d ed 2002)). An interpleader action avoids the issue of multiple, conflicting 

claims to a single fund by forcing the “claimants” to a limited amount of money to 

resolve their potentially adverse claims simultaneously before the same judge. See State 

Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523. (1967). An “[i]nterpleader’s primary 

purpose is not to compensate, but rather to protect stakeholders from multiple liability as 

 

2

 MetLife also seeks an order “that upon the defendants’ failure to litigate or settle or agree between themselves their claims for the Plan Benefits, that this Court should 

settle and adjust their claims and determine to whom the Plan Benefits should be paid.” (Doc. 23 at 1.) An order to this effect is unnecessary because, if MetLife establishes that 

interpleader is appropriate, the Court will adjudicate Defendants’ competing claims to the interplead funds, and the action will proceed as any other civil action. See Wells Fargo Bank v. Magellan Owners Assoc., 2010 WL 46794, at *2 (D. Ariz. Jan. 4, 2010) 

(discussing the procedure for interpleader actions). 

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 3 of 9
- 4 - 

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 

well as from the expense of multiple litigation.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 

1030, 1034 (9th Cir.2000). 

 An interpleader action usually proceeds in two stages. At the first stage, the court 

determines whether the interpleader action is appropriate. If so, then the court may order 

the plaintiff to deposit the disputed funds, discharge the plaintiff, and direct the claimants 

to interplead. At the second stage, the court adjudicates the defendants’ competing 

claims to the interplead funds, and the action usually proceeds as any other civil action. 

See Wells Fargo Bank, 2010 WL 46794, at *2 (discussing procedure for interpleader 

action). The second stage is usually resolved when the district court enters judgment in 

favor of a defendant who is legally entitled to the interplead funds. Id. (citing Diamond 

Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Comm’r of Revenues, 422 F.2d 532, 534 (8th Cir. 1970)). 

 Here, MetLife has submitted evidence that it faces exposure to multiple liability 

(Doc. 1, Exs. E, G) and has averred that it is a disinterested party with no claim to the 

insurance proceeds. Because each Defendant asserts that she is entitled to the insurance 

proceeds that are due as a result of Mr. Reynolds’s death, MetLife cannot distribute the 

proceeds without exposing itself to liability or litigation. Exposure to multiple claims for 

the proceeds of any ERISA benefit plan is a type of action for which interpleader is 

appropriate. See Trs of the Dirs. Guild of America-Producer Pension Benefits Plan v. 

Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426 (9th Cir. 2000). Thus, MetLife has established its right to 

interplead. 

A. Deposit of Disputed Funds 

 A statutory interpleader action, brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 as in this 

case, is “commenced . . . the date when the interpleader fund is deposited with Court.” In 

Re Enron Corp. Sec., Derivative & ERISA Litig., 391 F. Supp. 2d 541, 563 (S.D. Tex. 

2005) (citing Murphy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 534 F.2d 1155, 1159 (5th Cir.1976) (“The 

deposit requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to a suit under the interpleader statute. 

28 U.S.C. § 1335”)); 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(2). Accordingly, MetLife requests a Court 

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 4 of 9
- 5 - 

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 

order permitting it to deliver the disputed funds to the Clerk of Court for deposit in the 

Court’s registry. (Doc. 23 at 4.) 

 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 67 provides that when any part of the relief 

sought is a sum of money, a party may deposit the money with the court “on notice to the 

other party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a). MetLife has provided Defendants with notice and 

they do not object to MetLife depositing the funds with the Court. (Doc. 22 at 3-4.) 

Accordingly, upon consideration of Plaintiff’s request to deposit funds and, as authorized 

by Rule 67 and LRCiv 67.1, the Court grants Plaintiff’s request. MetLife may deliver to 

the Clerk of Court for deposit in the Court’s registry the disputed Plan Benefits in the 

amount of $161,100.00, plus any accrued interest, payable as a consequence of the death 

of Mr. Reynolds and as identified in the Complaint. The Clerk of Court shall place such 

funds in an interest bearing account pursuant to LRCiv 67.1(b). 

 Upon MetLife’s delivery of the disputed funds to Clerk of Court, MetLife will 

have satisfied the jurisdictional prerequisites for a statutory interpleader action. See 28 

U.S.C. 1335. First, MetLife commenced this civil action because it has possession of 

money with a value of more than $500.00, specifically the Plan Benefits of $161,100.00 

See 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a). Second, there is no dispute that the two adverse claimants have 

diverse citizenship. See 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(1) (requiring adverse citizenship between 

two or more adverse claimants); see also Blackmon Auctions, Inc. v. Van Buren Truck 

Ctr., Inc., 901 F. Supp. 287, 289 (W.D. Ark. 1995) (“The Federal Interpleader Act 

provides an independent basis for federal jurisdiction when there is minimal diversity 

between the claimants, i.e., when at least two of the claimants are citizens of different 

states.”). Rosina Reynolds is a resident of Alto, New Mexico, and Marlene Reynolds is a 

resident of Arizona. (Doc. 1; Doc. 22 at 5.) Third, pursuant to this Order, MetLife will 

deposit the insurance proceeds at issue into the registry of the Court. See 28 

U.S.C. § 1335(a)(2). Therefore, MetLife will have satisfied the jurisdictional 

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 5 of 9
- 6 - 

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 

prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. § 1335 upon the deposit of the disputed funds with the Clerk of 

Court.3

 B. Dismissal of Interpleader Plaintiff and Injunctive Relief 

 MetLife also seeks an order dismissing it from this action and enjoining 

Defendants from initiating further litigation regarding the disputed Plan Benefits. The 

Court grants the requested relief as discussed below. 

 When the jurisdictional prerequisites of 28 U.S.C. § 1335 are satisfied, “‘[t]he 

court should readily grant discharge of the [disinterested] stakeholder.’” Wells Fargo, 

2010 WL 46794, at *4 (quoting Moore’s Federal Practice § 22.03(2)(a); § 22.04(6)(b) 

(“Once a disinterested stakeholder deposits the stake with the court, the stakeholder 

should be dismissed from the action.”)) “The law normally regards the plaintiff in an 

interpleader action as having been discharged of full responsibility regarding the 

interpleaded funds when the funds have been paid into the registry of the court and the 

parties have had notice and opportunity to be heard.” Central Bank of Tampa v. United 

States, 838 F. Supp. 564, 567 (M.D. Fla. 1993) (internal citations omitted). 

 Accordingly, once MetLife appropriately deposits all of the disputed funds with 

the Clerk of Court, the Court will dismiss MetLife from this action and enter the 

requested injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2361. See Star Ins. Co. v. Cedar 

Valley Express, LLC, 273 F.Supp.2d at 43–44 (D. D.C. Sept. 18, 2002) (noting that the 

 

3

 The Complaint invokes both § 1335 and Rule 22. Because the Plan at issue is 

governed by ERISA, this Court also has jurisdiction over a Rule 22 interpleader action. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir. 2000) (a party seeking to bring a federal interpleader action under Rule 22 must establish statutory jurisdiction). However, because MetLife requests injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C.§ 2361, which is 

only applicable to statutory interpleader actions, the Court considers this action as a 

statutory interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335. See Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Probst, 2009 WL 3740775, at *1 (D. Ariz. Nov. 6, 2009) (stating that § 2361 only applies to statutory interpleader actions). Although courts have used the All Writs Statute, 28 

U.S.C. § 1651, to enjoin defendants in Rule 22 interpleader actions from bringing future proceedings regarding the same claim in federal or state court, Plaintiff’s motion does not 

address the standards for entering injunctive relief under § 1651. See New York Life Ins. Co. v. Deshotel, 142 F.3d 873, 879 (9th Cir. 1998) (Under the All Writs Statute, a federal 

court in a Rule 22 action has the power to issue an injunction enjoining the parties from relitigating the same issues in federal court); Trs. of the ILPWU-PMA Pension Plan v. 

Coates, 2013 WL 556800, at 87-8 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 2013) (“the All Writs Statute may be used to enjoin parties from relitigating the same issues or claims before state courts.”). 

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 6 of 9
- 7 - 

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 

policy considerations underlying the interpleader statute, including protecting the 

stakeholder from the expense of multiple lawsuits and from double liability, support the 

entry of injunctive relief). 

III. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

 Finally, MetLife seeks an award of attorneys’ fees and costs. Counsel for MetLife 

has submitted billing invoices including time entries in support of its request for 

attorneys’ fees in the amount of $3,307.20. (Doc. 23, Ex. A.) The Court will award 

attorneys’ fees for the time entries attached to MetLife’s motion, which total the 

requested amount. See Schirmer Stevedoring Co., LTD. v. Seaboard Stevedoring Corp., 

306 F.2d 188, 194 (9th Cir. 1962) (holding that the proper rule in an interpleader case 

with a disinterested plaintiff is for the plaintiff to be awarded attorneys’ fees for the 

services of his attorneys in interpleading). 

 After reviewing the time entries, the Court finds that MetLife’s attorneys charged 

a reasonable rate and spent a reasonable amount of time working on this interpleader 

action. See Trs. of Directors Guild, 234 F.3d at 426-26 (interpleader plaintiff is properly 

awarded attorneys’ fees for fees that are incurred in filing the action and pursuing the 

plan’s release from liability). The Court, therefore, awards MetLife $3,307.20 in 

attorneys’ fees to be paid from the sum that will be deposited with the registry of the 

Court in this case. See Id. at 427 (attorney’s fees awarded to the disinterested stakeholder 

in an interpleader action are paid from the interpleaded fund); CUNA Mut. Ins. Soc. v. 

Carrillo, 2009 WL 1383283, at *1 (D. Ariz. May 18, 2009) (awarding stakeholder in an 

interpleader action $7,566.00 in attorneys’ fees to be paid from the sum deposited with 

the court). 

 MetLife also seeks an award of $447.05 for costs including postage, the filing fee, 

and copying. (Doc. 23, Ex. 1.) Whether to award the disinterested stakeholder costs in 

an interpleader action is within the court’s discretion. Gelfgren v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. 

Co., 680 F.2d 79, 81 (9th Cir. 1982). Here, MetLife’s request for costs is reasonable and 

Defendants indicated that they do not object to those costs. (Doc. 23 at 5); see Schirmer

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 7 of 9
- 8 - 

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 

Stevedoring, 306 F.2d at 194 (ordinarily a stakeholder may be awarded fees and costs 

related to preparing and filing the complaint in the interpleader, securing a court order 

restraining further prosecution against the stakeholder, and preparing the details of the 

stakeholder's accounting); Allianz Life Ins. v. Agorio, 852 F. Supp. 2d 1163, 1170 

(N.D. Cal. 2012) (awarding interpleader stakeholder costs for research, filing and service 

expenses). Accordingly, the Court exercises its discretion to award MetLife its requested 

costs. 

 Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that MetLife’s motion to deposit the disputed Plan Benefits in 

the Court’s registry (Doc. 23) is GRANTED. MetLife must deposit the Plan Benefits, 

together with any interest accrued up to the date of such deposit, in compliance with 

LRCiv 67.1(a). 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MetLife’s motion for an order dismissing it 

from this action and entering injunctive relief (Doc. 23) is GRANTED such that when 

the disputed funds are deposited with the Clerk of Court, MetLife will be dismissed from 

this action and Rosina Reynolds and Marlene Reynolds will be permanently enjoined 

from instituting any action or proceeding in any federal or state court against MetLife or 

the Alcatel-Lucent Group Life Insurance Plan for Retired Employees for the recovery of 

the Plan Benefits by reason of the death of Michael Reynolds. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MetLife’s motion for attorneys’ fees 

(Doc. 23) is GRANTED and that MetLife is awarded $3,307.20 in attorneys’ fees. After 

MetLife has deposited the disputed funds with the Court, the award of attorneys’ fees will 

be paid out of the sum that MetLife deposited. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MetLife’s request for an award of costs is 

GRANTED and that MetLife is awarded $447.05 in costs. After MetLife has deposited 

the disputed funds with the Court, the costs will be paid out of the interpleaded funds that 

MetLife deposited. 

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 8 of 9
- 9 - 

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 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that MetLife is excused from attending the Rule 

16 Case Management Conference set for November 20, 2013 (Doc. 21). 

 Dated this 15th day of November, 2013. 

Case 2:13-cv-01253-BSB Document 25 Filed 11/15/13 Page 9 of 9