Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01857/USCOURTS-azd-2_05-cv-01857-0/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

1

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Michael R. Fanning, in his capacity as Chief

Executive Officer of the Central Pension

Fund of the International Union

of Operating Engineers and Participating

Employers, a trust,

Plaintiff,

v.

Bonnie Boreham, an individual; and Ruth

Boreham, an individual,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

 No. CIV 05-1857 PHX MHM

 ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT

BONNIE BOREHAM’S MOTION

FOR ENTRY OF DEFAULT

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 20, 2005, Plaintiff filed an action in interpleader in the above

matter. Plaintiff alleged that both Defendant Bonnie Boreham and Defendant Ruth

Boreham had filed widow’s claims as the lawful spouse of Wallace Boreham at the time

of his death in December, 2004. The Central Pension Fund of which Plaintiff is the

Chief Executive Officer has the obligation to provide a monthly surviving spouse benefits

to the true lawful spouse of Wallace Boreham from the Pension Fund Trust. Because

both Bonnie Boreham and Ruth Boreham had filed marriage licenses showing that a

marriage relationship with Wallace Boreham had existed at one time, Plaintiff asked this

Court to determine the appropriate “lawful spouse” entitled to the surviving spouse

Case 2:05-cv-01857-MHM Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 1 of 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

2

benefit. (Complaint, paragraph 5; Marriage License of Wallace Fenton Boreham and

Bonnie Caitlin dated March 12,1958, attached to Complaint.)

2. Based on the applications filed by both Bonnie Boreham and Ruth

Boreham, and based on his interpretation of the Plan and related documents, Plaintiff

stated in his Complaint that he was “in great doubt as to which defendant is entitled to

Survivor Pension Benefits.” (Complaint, Paragraph 7).

3. A Waiver of Service of Summons was signed on behalf of Defendant

Bonnie Boreham by N. Douglas Grimwood, her attorney, on October 6, 2005, and a

Waiver of Service of Summons on behalf of Ruth Boreham was signed by Gregory A.

Jones, Esq., her attorney, on October 7, 2005.

4. On December 1, 2005, Bonnie Boreham filed a timely Answer to Plaintiff’s

Complaint in Interpleader. The time for Defendant Ruth Boreham to file an Answer

expired on December 6, 2005. No Answer by Defendant In Interpleader Ruth Boreham

has ever been filed.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

5. Interpleader provides a process by which a party may join all claimants as

adverse parties when their claims are such that the stakeholder may be exposed to

multiple liability. Aetna Life Insurance Company v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 1030 (9th Cir.

2000). The Plaintiff in interpleader is not an interested party, and thus should withdraw

when the competing defendants answer the Complaint. 

6. In the present case, only one Defendant, Bonnie Boreham, has answered. 

More than five (5) months have passed since Defendant Ruth Boreham was served

through her attorney on October 7, 2005.

7. Where only one Defendant in an interpleader action files an answer, that

Defendant may file for a default against the other, non-answering Defendant. Peyton’s

Southeastern, Inc. v. Redtag Biz, Inc., 2003 WL 22077749 (D.Minn.2003); Life Insurance

Case 2:05-cv-01857-MHM Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 2 of 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

3

Company of North America v. Settlement Capital Group, 1999 WL 962476 (N.D.

Tex.1999); Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company v. Eason, 736 F.2d 130, 133, n.4

(4th Cir. 1984) [“If all but one named interpleader defendant defaulted, the remaining

defendant would be entitled to the fund”]; Gulf Coast Galvanizing, In. v. Steel Sales Co,

826 F.Supp.197, 203-4 (S.D.Miss.1993) [“... an interpleader claimant may obtain

judgment when the remaining claimants have defaulted.”]

8. The Plaintiff has received two applications for Survivor Spouse benefits due

the “lawful spouse” of Wallace Boreham on the date of his death. Each was accompanied

by a marriage license evidencing a marriage to Wallace Boreham. Plaintiff has indicated

that one, but not both, of the Defendants is entitled to receive the Survivor Spouse

benefits under Plaintiff’s Plan. Plaintiff has expressed “great doubt” concerning which

applicant is entitled to the benefit, and has asked this Court to declare which of the two

applicants is entitled to the benefit. Defendant in Interpleader Ruth Boreham having been

served through her attorney, and having failed to file an Answer, and Defendant in

Interpleader Bonnie Boreham having been served through her attorney and having filed a

timely Answer pursuing her claim to the benefits,

IT IS ORDERED that Defendant in Interpleader Bonnie Boreham is declared to be

entitled to the Survivor Pension Benefits of Wallace Boreham under the Central Pension

Fund of the International Union of Operating Engineers and Participating Employers;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall pay all Survivor Spouse Benefits

due from the date of death of Wallace Boreham to the date of Judgment in this matter to

Bonnie Boreham, and shall designate Bonnie Boreham as the lawful spouse of Wallace

Boreham for the payment of such future benefits to which the Surviving Spouse may be

entitled;

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, pursuant to the stipulation of the parties,

Plaintiff shall be entitled to offset the attorneys’ fees and costs incurred by Plaintiff in this

Case 2:05-cv-01857-MHM Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 3 of 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

4

action in the amount of $3,042.40 against amounts owed by Plaintiff to Defendant

Bonnie Boreham; 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Judgment shall be entered accordingly.

DATED this 27th day of March, 2006.

Case 2:05-cv-01857-MHM Document 14 Filed 03/31/06 Page 4 of 4