Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01738/USCOURTS-caed-2_05-cv-01738-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Insurance Contract

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

STATE FARM LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY, No. CIV-S-05-1738 WBS EFB PS

Plaintiff,

vs.

CARI VIVIAN, et al., ORDER

Defendants.

__________________________________/

This is an interpleader action involving a dispute over the proceeds of a life insurance

policy. The policy was issued by the plaintiff, State Farm Life Insurance Company (“State

Farm”), to John Vivian, who is now deceased. He is survived by four daughters, Kerin Johnston,

Lisa Steed, Lynne Andrew, and Jonna Cobb (hereafter “the daughters”), and an estranged wife

and stepmother of the daughters, Cari Vivian, all of whom are defendants. This action centers on

conflicting claims between the estranged wife on one side and the four daughters on the other. 

The beneficiary designation form on file with State Farm names the four daughters as sole

beneficiaries. After John Vivian’s death, Cari Vivian produced a substitution of beneficiary form

that is dated weeks before the date of death and purports to change the beneficiary from the four

daughters to Cari Vivian. The form was not provided to State Farm until after the insured’s

death.

Case 2:05-cv-01738-WBS-EFB Document 75 Filed 02/06/07 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

2

The case is now before the court on objections to the magistrate judge’s Findings and 

Recommendations filed on December 18, 2006, recommending that the daughters’ joint motion

to strike Cari Vivian’s pleading and claim be granted as a sanction for previous violations of

discovery orders and Local Rules. 

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full.

The Findings and Recommendations recite at length the unsettling pattern of Cari

Vivian’s repeated failures to comply with the court’s orders. Findings and Recommendations, at

3-4, 6. As detailed in the recommendation, prior warnings and the imposition of monetary

sanctions have failed to get her attention. This court agrees with the analysis in the

recommendation that striking Cari Vivian’s claim is the appropriate sanction under the five-part

test of Valley Eng’r, Inc. v. Electric Eng’g Co., 158 F.3d 1051, 1056-57 (9th Cir. 1998).

Cari Vivian’s objections argue that the sanction is harsh. Obviously it is harsh and that is

a factor necessarily considered and addressed by the Findings and Recommendations (at p. 6)

regarding the fifth factor in the test, i.e., whether less drastic sanctions have been attempted but

failed. As found by the magistrate judge, the court previously attempted the less drastic means of

a monetary sanction for Cari Vivian’s prior violations. She not only failed to pay the monetary

sanction, she continued to ignore – until the evening before the November 15, 2006 hearing – the

Case 2:05-cv-01738-WBS-EFB Document 75 Filed 02/06/07 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

 Rather than dismissal of the action, the stipulation and order discharged State Farm, the 1

interpleader plaintiff, and “dismissed” that party “with prejudice.” Dkt entry 26, Stipulation and

Order of Discharge and Dismissal.

 Section IX of the scheduling order authorizes the magistrate judge to modify all dates other 2

than the dates for the final pretrial conference and trial. The orders issued by Magistrate Judge

Moulds on August 22, 2006 and by Magistrate Judge Brennan on December 18, 2006 necessarily

extend the discovery deadline for purposes of resolving those discovery motions and enforcing the

discovery orders.

3

order that she produce the discovery required by Rule 37, Fed. R. Civ. P. Her objections provide

nothing of merit to counter the analysis in the recommendation.

Her argument that the Findings and Recommendations are based on a material

misunderstanding of the record simply misstates the analysis in the recommendation. In

summarizing the procedural background, the recommendation makes note of the unsuccessful

voluntary dispute resolution efforts, and the fact that resolution of the case was at one point

imminent. The Findings and Recommendations also refer to a docket entry that states that the

“action was dismissed with prejudice.” Cari Vivian’s objections point out that this docket entry

is inaccurate. However, the mention of that entry in the recommendation is of no moment. The 1

Findings and Recommendations’ analysis that the sanction of striking the claim is appropriate

under the Valley Eng’r test does not in any way depend upon the information contained in that

docket entry. It has nothing to do with the conclusion reached and the reasons stated for that

conclusion.

The claim that Cari Vivian was not given notice of the sanction sought and recommended

is belied by the record. The Notice of Motion and Motion, at page 2, expressly states that

“Vivian’s failure to comply with the discovery order is without reasonable excuse, and the Court

should strike her answer and enter judgment based there on.” The amended notice to reflect the

new hearing date provides identical information. She also argues that the defendants propounded

discovery requests after a discovery cutoff date of March 10, 2006. However, that date was

extended on two occasions, as authorized by the original pretrial scheduling order. Moreover, 2

Case 2:05-cv-01738-WBS-EFB Document 75 Filed 02/06/07 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

4

the other arguments asserted in the objections by Cari Vivian lack merit.

The daughters have filed an objection regarding the language for dismissal of their crosscomplaint asserting state law claims. Although they do not object to the dismissal of the crossclaims, they seek to clarify that the recommendation to dismiss their cross-complaint should be

without prejudice. The clarification is unnecessary. The Findings and Recommendations simply

provide that the cross-complaint “be dismissed.” Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), unless

otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal is without prejudice. The court adopts the

recommendation to dismiss the cross-complaint. With the disposal of the federal jurisdiction

claims, the court finds that it is appropriate to decline supplemental jurisdiction over the crossclaim, which presents only state law issues. United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 727

(1966); Danner v. Himmelfarb, 858 F.2d 515, 524 (9th Cir. 1988).

The daughters also request that any judgment include the amount of the unpaid monetary

sanctions imposed against Cari Vivian. The court notes that defendant Cari Vivian has not yet

paid monetary sanctions ordered by Magistrate Judge Moulds and Magistrate Judge Brennan. 

Striking her answer to the complaint in interpleader and the dismissal of the cross-complaint

against her does not relieve Ms. Vivian of her obligation to pay the sanctions imposed by those

orders which, in combination, total $4,725.00. The judgment entered shall include the monetary

sanctions in that amount.

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed December 18, 2006, are adopted;

2. The motion to strike the answer of defendant Cari Vivian to the complaint in

interpleader is granted; 

3. Cari Vivian’s answer to the complaint in interpleader is stricken and default judgment

is entered in favor of defendants Johnston, Steed, Cobb, and Andrew as to the interplead funds;

4. The judgment entered shall include the monetary sanction against Cari Vivian and in

favor of defendants Johnston, Steed, Cobb, and Andrew in the amount of $4,725.00.

Case 2:05-cv-01738-WBS-EFB Document 75 Filed 02/06/07 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

5

5. The complaint and cross-complaint are dismissed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2); and 

6. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 

DATED: February 5, 2007

Case 2:05-cv-01738-WBS-EFB Document 75 Filed 02/06/07 Page 5 of 5