Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01788/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01788-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader 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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

CUNA Mutual Insurance Society, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Zenaida Carrillo (aka Zenaida Tejeda Diaz

aka Zenaida Diaz Tejeda); Margaret S.

Carrillo; et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1788-PHX-JAT

ORDER

Plaintiff CUNA Mutual Life Insurance Society brought this interpleader action to

have the Court resolve disputed claims to the death benefit proceeds of a term life insurance

policy issued by Plaintiff to Manuel Carrillo, Policy No. NJ5879571 (the “Policy”). Both

Margaret S. Carrillo, Manuel Carrillo’s ex-wife, and Zenaida Carrillo, Manuel Carrillo’s

surviving spouse, submitted claims to Plaintiff for the proceeds of the Policy. The Court

granted Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Deposit (Doc. #9) the Policy proceeds into the

Registry of the Court on October 16, 2008. (Doc. #10). 

Plaintiff filed an Application for Entry of Order of Exoneration and Discharge of

Interpleader, Permanent Injunction, and Award of Costs and Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #15) on

November 5, 2008. Initially, both Margaret and Zenaida Carrillo objected only to awarding

attorneys’ fees to Plaintiffs, not to discharging Plaintiff. Margaret Carrillo filed an

additional, late response, without leave of the Court, in which she objected to Plaintiff’s

Application. (See Doc. #26). She did not cite any law in support of her objection. 

Case 2:08-cv-01788-JAT Document 49 Filed 05/18/09 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

27

28 1

The Court declines to award an uncertain amount for “future work.”

- 2 -

Because the Court finds that Plaintiff has no interest in the Policy proceeds, has

properly served the original claimants to the proceeds, and has deposited the proceeds with

the Court, the Court will grant Plaintiff’s request to be discharged from this case and from

further liability for the funds. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th

Cir. 2000)(“Interpleader’s primary purpose is . . . to protect stakeholders from multiple

liability as well as from the expense of multiple litigation.”). Additionally, the Court will

award Plaintiff attorneys’ fees. 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). 

Counsel for Plaintiff have filed affidavits in support of Plaintiff’s request for

attorneys’ fees. The Court will award fees only for the time entries attached to the affidavit.1

After reviewing the affidavit, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s attorneys charged a reasonable

rate and spent a reasonable amount of time working on this interpleader action. The Court

therefore will award Plaintiff $7566 in attorneys’ fees to be paid from the sum deposited with

the Registry of the Court in this case. The Court sees no just reason for delay on its Order

awarding attorneys’ fees to Plaintiff. The Court will not award costs at this time. If Plaintiff

wants to recover costs, it should file a bill of costs with the Clerk pursuant to Local Rule of

Civil Procedure 54.1(a).

The Court’s favorable ruling on Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Order of

Exoneration and Discharge of Interpleader, Permanent Injunction, and Award of Costs and

Attorneys’ Fees (Doc. #15) moots several other motions pending in the case. The Court will

therefore deny as moot the following: Defendant Margaret Carrillo’s Motion to File

Injunction (Doc. #26), Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant Margaret Carrillo’s Motion to

File Injunction (Doc. #29), Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Disposition of Application for

Entry of Order of Exoneration and Discharge (Doc. #46), and Plaintiff’s Motion for

Case 2:08-cv-01788-JAT Document 49 Filed 05/18/09 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

27

28

- 3 -

Exemption from Additional Disclosure, Discovery, and other Pretrial Requirements (Doc.

#48).

Having resolved Plaintiff’s Application, the Court will now turn to other issues

pending in the case. Defendant Margaret Carrillo has filed a Motion to Claim Statutory

Allowance for Minor Child of Decedent (Doc. #25). This Court is a not a probate Court and

will not attempt to act as a probate court. Moreover, as Defendant Zenaida Carrillo correctly

points out, life insurance policy proceeds cannot be used to pay statutory allowances in

Arizona. In re Estate of Agans, 998 P.2d 449, 452 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2000). The Court

therefore will deny Margaret Carrillo’s Motion.

A non-party to this case, Rachel Carrillo Farris, has filed a Request Proceeds of

Insurance Policy Paid to Heirs (Doc. #37). Ms. Farris has not moved to intervene in this

case. The Court, however, will construe her Request as a motion to intervene and will grant

her leave to intervene. The Court notes that Ms. Farris, as a pro se litigant, cannot represent

her brothers and sisters in this action, despite the power of attorney forms. A pro se party

cannot act as counsel for another pro se party. 

The Court will deny at this time Ms. Farris’s Request to pay the insurance proceeds

to the heirs. As a party, Ms. Farris will have an opportunity to file a motion for summary

judgment after the close of discovery on June 4, 2009 and by the dispositive motion deadline

on July 2, 2009. The Court will also deny Defendant Margaret Carrillo’s Motion to Pay

Beneficiary of Record and not Surviving Spouse (Doc. #47) without prejudice to re-urging

her arguments in a dispositive motion after the close of discovery. The Court cautions both

Ms. Farris and Margaret Carrillo that any motion for summary judgment they choose to file

must comply with both Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local Rule of Civil Procedure

56.1, including the requirement to cite to record evidence.

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED Granting Plaintiff’s Application for Entry of Order of Exoneration

and Discharge of Interpleader, Permanent Injunction, and Award of Costs and Attorneys’

Fees (Doc. #15) as outlined in this Order. Plaintiff is exonerated and discharged from this

Case 2:08-cv-01788-JAT Document 49 Filed 05/18/09 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

27

28

- 4 -

interpleader action.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants are permanently enjoined from

instituting or pursuing any action against Plaintiff in any court in connection with the Policy

proceeds.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff is awarded attorneys’ fees in the amount

of $7566 to be paid out of the sum deposited with the Registry of the Court for this case. The

Court sees no just reason to delay entering partial final judgment on its award of attorneys’

fees to Plaintiffs. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying as moot: Defendant Margaret Carrillo’s

Motion to File Injunction (Doc. #26), Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Defendant Margaret

Carrillo’s Motion to File Injunction (Doc. #29), Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Disposition

of Application for Entry of Order of Exoneration and Discharge (Doc. #46), and Plaintiff’s

Motion for Exemption from Additional Disclosure, Discovery, and other Pretrial

Requirements (Doc. #48).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying Defendant Margaret Carrillo’s Claim to

Statutory Allowance for Minor Child of Decedent (Doc. #25).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED Denying, without prejudice to refiling at the

appropriate time and in the appropriate form, Defendant Margaret Carrillo’s Motion to Pay

Beneficiary of Record and not Surviving Spouse (Doc. #47) and Defendant Rachel Carrillo

Farris’s Request Proceeds of Insurance Policy Paid to Heirs (Doc. #37).

DATED this 15th day of May, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01788-JAT Document 49 Filed 05/18/09 Page 4 of 4