Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01288/USCOURTS-casd-3_17-cv-01288-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

17-cv-1288-AJB-WVG

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Great American Life Insurance Co.,

Plaintiff-in-Interpleader,

v.

Deborah Joan Hollick, et al.,

Defendants-in-Interpleader.

Case No.: 17-cv-1288-AJB-WVG

ORDER GRANTING GREAT 

AMERICAN’S MOTION TO DISMISS 

(Doc. No. 60)

Before the Court is Great American’s motion to dismiss themselves from litigation, 

discharge themselves of all liability, seek a permanent injunction from future related 

litigation, and to recover attorney’s fees and costs. Because the Court finds Great American

has suitably interpled the litigated funds, the Court GRANTS the dismissal motion.

I. BACKGROUND

Helga A. Neubert (decedent), had two single premium deferred annuities—one with 

Fidelity and one with Great American. Her daughter, Deborah Hollick, was the sole 

beneficiary. Neubert died in Germany and Hollick filed a claim for the annuity. Shortly 

after, Great American received a letter from Reinhard von Hennigs, who represented Diana 

Bachmann and Leilani Stretz, who claimed they were the holders of powers of attorney to 

Neubert’s estate. The letter asserted that German inheritance law applied, and because 

Bachmann and Stretz held the powers of attorney, they were authorized to withdraw gifts 

Neubert made to them from the estate. They directed Great American to make the estate 

Case 3:17-cv-01288-AJB-WVG Document 64 Filed 02/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2

17-cv-1288-AJB-WVG

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

the annuity’s beneficiary so they could withdraw their gifts, and requested no 

disbursements be made to Hollick, as it would be a breach of fiduciary duty to Neubert.

Unable to determine the proper beneficiary, Great American filed this interpleader action 

against Hollick and Bachmann and Stretz. Great American deposited $571,250.63 with the 

Court, which is the payment amount of the annuity plus interest.

After a show cause hearing, the Court decided all motions in favor of Hollick in both 

the instant and related case: including granting Hollick’s summary judgment motion, 

(Doc. No. 24), and denying Bachmann and Stretz’s dismissal motion, (Doc. No. 26). The 

Court also granted Fidelity’s nearly identical dismissal motion in the related case. (Fidelity 

v. Hollick, Case No. 17-cv-1108-AJB-WVG, Doc. No. 62.) Hollick, the only responding 

party to the instant motion, filed a notice of non-opposition. (Doc. No. 62.)

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

“In an interpleader action, the ‘stakeholder’ of a sum of money sues all those who 

might have claim to the money, deposits the money with the district court, and lets the 

claimants litigate who is entitled to the money.” Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 

1261, 1265 (9th Cir. 1992). “Procedurally, an interpleader action encompasses two stages. 

First, the court determines the propriety of interpleading the adverse claimants and 

relieving the stakeholder from liability. The second stage involves an adjudication of the 

adverse claims of the defendant claimants.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Billini, No. CIV. S–06–

02918 WBS KJM, 2007 WL 4209405, at *2, (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) (internal citations 

and quotation marks omitted). After determining an interpleader action’s appropriateness, 

a court is entitled to discharge a plaintiff-stakeholder who has no interest in the disputed 

funds. Mendez v. Teachers Ins. & Annuity Ass’n and College Retirement Equities Fund, 

982 F.2d 783, 787 (2d Cir. 1992); Valley Forge Life Ins. Co. v. Dena Hulse, Case No. 

C 06–6415 PJH, 2007 WL 2012740, at *2 (N.D. Cal. July 6, 2007)). However, “any 

injunction that is issued only can extend to litigation involving the fund that is the subject 

matter of the interpleader.” Wash. Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P. C., 985 

F.2d 677, 680 (2d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).

Case 3:17-cv-01288-AJB-WVG Document 64 Filed 02/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3

17-cv-1288-AJB-WVG

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

III. ANALYSIS

Great American seeks to be (1) dismissed from the action, (2) discharged from 

liability, (3) enjoined from future proceedings, and (4) compensated for attorney’s fees and 

costs. (Doc. No. 60.)

A. Great American’s Dismissal from Action

To determine the complaint’s appropriateness, the Court must determine whether it 

has jurisdiction and whether there is a legitimate fear of multiple litigation. See 

Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Shubin, No. 1:11–cv–01958–LJO–SKO, 2012 WL 2839704, 

at *4–*5 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2012). 

1. The Court has Jurisdiction

According to 28 U.S.C. § 1355, a district court has jurisdiction if the property in 

question exceeds $500 and if the claimants are diverse as defined in 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 

Great American’s complaint establishes diversity jurisdiction as Great American is a 

citizen of Ohio, Hollick is a citizen of California, and Bachmann and Stretz are citizens of 

Germany. (Doc. No. 1 at 2.) The amount-in-controversy exceeds the threshold because the 

annuity in dispute is $500,000, plus interest. (Id. at 3) Thus, the Court has jurisdiction. 

2. Great American had a Legitimate Fear of Multiple Litigation

Rule 22(a)(1) also requires fear of multiple litigation or liability. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22. 

“Interpleader is appropriate if the stakeholder-plaintiff has a real and reasonable fear of 

double liability or vexatious, conflicting claims.” Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wells, No. 

C09–0132 BZ, 2009 WL 1457676, at *2 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2009) (internal citations and 

quotations omitted). Great American claims they were “presented with the real possibility 

of multiple liability.” (Doc. No. 60 at 6.) Both Bachmann and Stretz, as well as Hollick, 

have made claims to Neubert’s annuity with each claiming a different set of laws apply. 

Moreover, Bachmann and Stretz insisted Great American was not to distribute funds to 

Hollick, proving these claims are directly competing. (Id.) As such, the Court finds Great 

American had a legitimate fear of multiple litigants.

Case 3:17-cv-01288-AJB-WVG Document 64 Filed 02/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4

17-cv-1288-AJB-WVG

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

Thus, the Court finds the interpleader action is proper because it meets the statutory 

requirement for diversity and there was a fear of multiple litigation.

B. Great American is Discharged from Liability

“Once the court determines that an interpleader is proper, it may discharge the 

stakeholder from further liability.” Transamerica, 2012 WL 2839704 at *6; see also Wells 

Fargo Bank v. PACCAR Fin. Corp., No. 1:08–CV–00904 AWI SMS, 2009 WL 211386, 

at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 28, 2009) (explaining that in a rule interpleader action, “[i]f an 

interpleading plaintiff has no interest in the stake, the plaintiff should be dismissed”). “A 

court should readily discharge a disinterested stakeholder from further liability absent a 

stakeholder’s bad faith in commencing an interpleader action, potential independent 

liability to a claimant, or failure to satisfy requirements of rule or statutory interpleader.” 

OM Financial Life Ins. Co. v. Helton, No. CIV. 2:09–1989 WBS EFB, 2010 WL 3825655, 

at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2010) (citations omitted).

Great American argues they are a disinterested stakeholder who brought this action 

in good faith, thus should be discharged from liability. (Doc. No. 60 at 6.) See New York 

Life Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Dev. Auth., 700 F.2d 91, 96 (2d Cir. 1983) (holding that a 

disinterested stakeholder may be discharged unless the action was brought in bad faith).

Great American’s only obligation is to pay out the annuity, which it has deposited with the 

Court. Great American has shown no other interests in the litigation or bad faith in initiating 

the proceedings. Thus, the Court finds discharging Great American from the case is 

appropriate.

C. Great American is Enjoined from Future Proceedings

In “any civil action of interpleader” a district court may discharge the interpleading 

plaintiff from further liability, enjoin the parties from instituting further related actions,

and make all other appropriate orders. 28 U.S.C. § 2361; Sun Life. Assur. Co. of Canada v. 

Chan’s Estate, No. C-03-2205 SC, 2003 WL 22227881, at * 2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2003); 

U.S. v. High Tech. Prods., 497 F.3d 637 (6th Cir. 2007) (Plaintiff stake-holder may also 

request injunctive relief in which the court enjoins pending or future proceedings against 

Case 3:17-cv-01288-AJB-WVG Document 64 Filed 02/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5

17-cv-1288-AJB-WVG

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 by defendants in any other court.”). Great American brought this interpleader action 

solely to determine the proper parties to receive the annuity and to avoid future claims and 

litigation. Because the Court finds Great American is merely a disinterested stakeholder, 

the Court enjoins Great American from any future proceedings against it related to these 

claims.

D. Great American is Entitled to Recover Attorney’s Fees and Costs

A party “should be awarded attorney fees for the services of his attorneys in 

interpleading.” Schirmer Stevedoring Co. Ltd. v. Seaboard Stevedoring Corp., 306 F.2d 

188, 194 (9th Cir. 1962). The court exercises its discretion to determine whether the amount 

of attorney fees requested are reasonable. See Tr. of Dir. Guild of Am.-Producer Pension 

Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426 (9th Cir. 2000); Gelfgren v. Republic Nat. Life 

Ins. Co., 680 F.2d 79, 81 (9th Cir. 1982). Generally, an insurer which institutes an 

interpleader to determine the rights of adverse claimants to policy benefits may recover 

attorney fees. See Mass. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Morris, 61 F.2d 104 (9th Cir. 1932). 

Great American seeks $5,454.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. (Doc. No. 60 at 9.) 

This includes $5,000 in attorney’s fees—a reduction of actual fees—as well as $454 in 

costs. (Id. at 9.) The Court finds Great American’s costs to be reasonable as they were used 

for initiating the impleader action, effecting service, opposing motions, and participating 

in conferences. (Id. at 9–10.) Thus, the Court GRANTS awarding Great American

$5,454.00 for attorney’s fees and costs.

V. CONCLUSION

Great American’s motion to dismiss is GRANTED. (Doc. No. 60.) Great American

is dismissed and discharged from this action, enjoined from future suits related to this

//

//

//

//

Case 3:17-cv-01288-AJB-WVG Document 64 Filed 02/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
6

17-cv-1288-AJB-WVG

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

action, and is awarded attorney’s fees and costs. The Clerk of Court is directed to pay 

Great American’s claim for $5,454.00 care of their counsel of record forthwith.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 5, 2018

Case 3:17-cv-01288-AJB-WVG Document 64 Filed 02/05/18 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6