Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00944/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-00944-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity Action

---

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 

- 1 - CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DELAWARE LIFE INSURANCE 

COMPANY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

MARY ELIZABETH MOORE, an 

individual; ESTATE OF RICHARD 

LYNWOOD MOORE, by and 

through the Administrator of the 

Estate; KEVIN RICHARD MOORE, 

an individual; CKM, a minor, by and 

through his Guardian ad Litem; and 

DOES 3 through 10, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

Case No. 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB

ORDER: 

(1)ADOPTING REPORT AND 

RECOMMENDATION [DOC. 57]; 

(2) GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART JOINT 

MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT 

[DOC. 35]; 

(3)GRANTING JOINT MOTION 

FOR ORDER SEEKING 

DISTRIBUTION OF DEATH 

BENEFIT, REIMBURSEMENT 

OF FEES AND COSTS, 

DISCHARGE OF PLAINTIFF 

AND DISMISSAL OF ACTION 

WITH PREJUDICE [DOC. 59] 

The parties have filed a joint motion for approval of a settlement agreement 

involving a minor [Doc. 35].1

 The parties also filed a joint motion for order [Doc. 

59] following the report and recommendation of the Honorable Michael S. Berg, 

 

1

 It appears the parties filed the joint motion for settlement twice, with the second filing including a declaration in support of approving the joint motion in light of the minor’s compromise. Substantively, the pleadings appear identical. As such, the Court disposition of docket number 35 applies equally to docket number 40. 

Case 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB Document 60 Filed 06/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 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 

- 2 - CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB 

United States Magistrate Judge, recommending this Court GRANT IN PART and 

DENY IN PART the parties’ joint motion for settlement [Doc. 57]. For the reasons 

stated herein, the Court ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

in its entirety. 

On December 6, 2018, Delaware Life filed the operative Complaint in 

interpleader and for declaratory relief regarding the conflicting claims to the death 

benefit under an annuity contract between the Estate of Richard L. Moore, Mary 

Moore, Kevin Moore (decedent Richard L. Moore’s adult son, and CKM (decedent 

Richard L. Moore’s minor son) [ECF No. 28-3].2

 On August 29, 1987, Richard L. 

Moore and Mary Moore (collectively “the Moores”) married. On September 27, 

2001, while married, the two purchased the annuity contract underlying this matter, 

a Certificate for Flexible Payment Deferred Combination Variable and Fixed Group 

Annuity Contract Nonparticipating, Certificate No. 84-8400-001940 (the “Annuity 

Contract”) from Sun Life Insurance Company (“Sun Life”) at a price of $1.2 million. 

The Moores designated the “Surviving Spouse” as 100% Primary Beneficiary when 

applying for the Annuity Contract. See ECF No. 28-4 at 11. On May 28, 2013, Mary 

Moore filed for dissolution of the marriage. Effective July 21, 2014, Sun Life 

changed its name to Delaware Life Insurance Company (“Delaware Life”). On 

December 10, 2015, prior to the final Dissolution Judgment, the Moores entered into 

a marital settlement agreement (the “MSA”), which stated that the decedent Richard 

L. Moore and Mary Moore would each own “undivided 50% interest” after 

dissolution of the marriage. On March 7, 2017, the Dissolution Judgment was 

entered dissolving the Moores’ marriage. 

On December 25, 2017, Richard L. Moore died intestate, leaving no surviving 

spouse and two sons including minor CKM. On February 14, 2018, Mary Moore, 

 2

 Plaintiff Delaware Life filed its initial Complaint bringing the same causes 

of action on May 15, 2018 to resolve conflicting claims to the death benefit under the 

Annuity Contract by decedent’s estate and Mary Moore. 

Case 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB Document 60 Filed 06/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 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 

- 3 - CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB 

mother of the decedent’s only heirs, Kevin Moore and minor CKM, filed a Petition 

for Probate and Letters of Administration with Authorization to Administer the Estate 

pursuant to the Independent Administration of Estates Act (the “Probate Petition”) in 

the Probate Court for the Superior Court of California, County of San Diego, Central 

Branch (“Probate Court”), In Re Estate of Richard L. Moore, Case No. 37-2018-

00007575-PR-LA-CTL (“Probate Proceeding”). The Probate Court approved Mary 

Moore’s Probate Petition and issued an Order for Probate on April 4, 2018. On 

Septmeber 27, 2018, Mary Moore, acting as administrator for the decedent’s estate, 

filed an ex parte petition for order authorizing the administrator to execute a 

settlement agreement and/or other pleadings to allow for the equal distribution of 

annuity benefit between the estate and administrator. The Probate Court held the 

hearing on the ex parte motion on October 5, 2018. At the hearing, the Probate Court 

appointed a Guardian Ad Litem, Jeffrey T. Vanderveen, Esq. (Guardian Ad Litem”), 

for CKM and continued the hearing to November 9, 2018. On November 2, 2018, 

the filed his report recommending approval of the ex parte petition after reviewing 

the petition and interviewing CKM and Mary Moore. On November 9, 2018, the 

Probate Court issued an order approving the ex parte petition and authorizing Mary 

Moore to execute a settlement agreement and other necessary documents to facilitate 

an equal division of the Annuity Contract and to resolve the interpleader proceeding, 

in her capacity as Administrator for decedent’s estate. 

On December 6, 2018, the parties filed a joint motion to join decedent’s only 

heirs, Kevin Moore and minor CKM; the motion also sought reimbursement of 

attorneys’ fees and costs to Delaware Life, Delaware Life’s discharge of liability, 

distribution of proceeds to decedent’s estate and Mary Moore and dismissal. The 

Court’s December 6, 2018 Order joined decedent’s heirs and deemed the First 

Amended Complaint filed but denied the remainder of the motion as Civil Local Rule 

17.1 requires all settlement agreements to be reviewed by a magistrate judge before 

any order of approval will issue. On February 21, 2019, Michael S. Berg, United 

Case 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB Document 60 Filed 06/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 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 

- 4 - CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB 

States Magistrate Judge, issued a report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

636(b)(1) and the Local Rules. After reviewing the settlement agreement and binding 

law, Judge Berg found that the equal division of the Annuity between Ms. Moore and 

decedent’s estate to be a fair and reasonable resolution and in the best interests of the 

parties, including CKM. Judge Berg also recommended that the attorneys’ fees 

accounted for in the settlement be reduced from $58,480.76 to $24,260.36. Judge 

Berg set a briefing schedule by which any party could file written objections with the 

Court. To this point, no party has filed any objection to Judge Berg’s report and 

recommendation. 

A district judge "may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition" 

on a dispositive matter prepared by a magistrate judge proceeding without the consent 

of the parties for all purposes. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3); see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). 

"The court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 

recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). When no 

objections are filed, de novo review is waived. Section 636(b)(1) does not require 

review by the district court under a lesser standard. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 

149-50 (1985). The "statute makes it clear that the district judge must review the 

magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but 

not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 

(en banc) (emphasis in original). 

In the absence of objections, the Court adopts Judge Berg’s report and 

recommendation [Doc. 57]. Accordingly, the Court approves the settlement between 

Ms. Moore and the decedent’s estate, including CKM but reduces Plaintiff’s 

attorneys’ fees to $24,260.36. After reimbursement for attorneys’ fees, Delaware 

Life is hereby ordered to distribute the Annuity proceeds between Ms. Moore and the 

decedent’s estate as previously agreed in their settlement agreement. As such, the 

parties’ joint motion for settlement [Doc. 35, 40] is granted in part and denied in part. 

Moreover, the parties’ joint motion for order is granted. Accordingly, Plaintiff is 

Case 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB Document 60 Filed 06/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 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 

- 5 - CASE NO. 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB 

discharged from liability, service of the first amended complaint and Defendants’ 

responses is waived, and this action is dismissed with prejudice. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: June 12, 2019 

Case 3:18-cv-00944-L-MSB Document 60 Filed 06/12/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 5