Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00364/USCOURTS-casd-3_19-cv-00364-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 791
Nature of Suit: Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

1 

19cv364 JM(AGS) 

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

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE SAN 

DIEGO THEATRICAL PENSION 

FUND, 

Plaintiff,

v. 

FRANCISCA P. VINCENT, an 

individual; JOHN L. VINCENT, an 

individual; CAROL KENNISTON, an 

individual; and ANNMARIE RIEBEL, an 

individual, 

Defendants.

Case No.: 19cv364 JM(AGS) 

ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION 

FOR FEES AND COSTS

Presently before the court is Plaintiff, Board of Trustees of the San Diego Theatrical 

Pension Fund’s (“Board of Trustees”) Motion for Fees and Costs. (Doc. No. 14.) Upon 

consideration of the motion, the court grants the request. 

I. Background

On February 22, 2019, Plaintiff in Interpleader filed suit in this matter. (Doc. No. 

1., the “Compl.”) Board of Trustees administers the San Diego Theatrical Pension Trust 

Fund (the “Trust Fund”) on behalf of a number of participants. One participant, Michael 

John Vincent, who died on September 14, 2017, designated his mother, Ms. Francisca P. 

Case 3:19-cv-00364-JM-AGS Document 16 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 6
2 

19cv364 JM(AGS) 

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

Vincent as his beneficiary. (Id. at ¶ 12.) Based on the terms of the Pension Plan, Mr. 

Vincent’s beneficiary was entitled to receive a pre-retirement death benefit equal to 

$23,440.75. (Id. at ¶ 11.)

On September 14, 2017, the Administrative Office for the Trust Fund, sent a letter 

to Ms. Francisca Vincent with documentation informing her of the benefits she was entitled 

to under the terms of her son’s Pension Plan. (Id. at ¶ 13.) Formal follow up letters were 

mailed on February 23, 2018 and March 23, 2018. (Id.) Subsequent telephone calls have 

been made to Ms. Vincent in an attempt to get her to complete the necessary paperwork so 

that she can receive her son’s death benefits. (Id. at ¶ 14.) 

However, on January 2, 2018, Ms. Carol Kenniston, Ms. Vincent’s daughter, 

informed the Trust Fund that her mother “has ripped up the insurance check and refuses to 

complete the pension paperwork. She has told me she does not want his money at all or 

anything to do with his death benefits.” (Id. at ¶ 15.) Additional communications with Ms. 

Kenniston illustrate that her mother maintains her position.

Under the terms of the Plan: 

If no Beneficiary is designated by a Participant or Pensioner, or if a designated 

Beneficiary predeceases the Participant or Pensioner, or survives him but dies 

prior to receipt of any benefits under this Article, the benefits provided under 

the Pension Plan to the beneficiary, if any, may be paid to the surviving person 

or persons in the first of the classes of beneficiaries in which a member 

survives the Participant: (1) Participant’s Spouse; (2) Participant’s children; 

(3) Participant’s parents; (4) Participant’s brothers and/or sisters 

(Id. at ¶ 16) 

Defendants Francisca Vincent and John Vincent are the decedent’s/participant’s

parents and Carol Kenniston and AnnMarie Riebel are his siblings. 

The Board of Trustees has received potential claims from more than one of the 

defendants but because of Ms. Vincent’s refusal to either complete the paperwork 

necessary to receive the death benefits or to formally renounce her claim, the Board of 

Trustees is unable to distribute the benefits in accordance with the terms of the Plan.

The Board of Trustees prayed for the following judgment in the Complaint:

Case 3:19-cv-00364-JM-AGS Document 16 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 6
3 

19cv364 JM(AGS) 

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. That Defendants in Interpleader be ordered to interplead and litigate their 

respective rights to the above-described funds;

2. That Plaintiff in Interpleader be discharged from any and all liability on account 

of the claims of each of the Defendants in Interpleader; 

3. That Defendants in Interpleader, and each of the them, be restrained from 

instituting any action against Plaintiff in Interpleader on their respective claims; 

4. That Plaintiff in Interpleader be awarded costs and reasonable attorney’s fees as 

determined by the Court and to be paid to Plaintiff in Interpleader from the abovedescribed funds hereafter deposited in accordance with the Court’s instructions; 

and 

5. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem appropriate.

(Id. at 5-6.)

Defendants were properly served with the summons and complaint. On February 22, 

2019, a summons issued (Doc. No. 2), that was executed against Defendants Francisca 

Vincent and John Vincent on March 16, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 5, 6.) On March 28, 2019, 

Waivers of the Service of Summons were filed with the court that were executed by 

AnnMarie Riebel and Carol Kenniston on March 7, 2019. (Doc. Nos. 3, 4.) 

On June 17, 2019, Mr. John Vincent filed an answer to the Complaint wherein he 

stated that he would “abide by the court’s decision.” (Doc. No. 7.)

On July 2, 2019, Board of Trustees requested the Clerk of Court enter default against 

Defendants Vincent, Riebel and Kenniston. (Doc. No. 9). On July 8, 2019, the Clerk duly 

entered default against the three defendants. (Doc. No. 10.) On August 5, 2018, Board of 

Trustees filed the Motion for Default Judgment against Francisca Vincent, Annmarie

Riebel, and Carol Kenniston. (Doc. No. 12.) 

On November 21, 2019, the court granted the motion for default judgment, ordering

that the Board of Trustees was discharged from any and all liability on account of the claims

///

///

Case 3:19-cv-00364-JM-AGS Document 16 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 6
4 

19cv364 JM(AGS) 

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

of Ms. Vincent, Ms. Riebel and Ms. Kenniston. (Doc. No. 13 at 71.) Ms. Vincent, Ms. 

Riebel and Ms. Kenniston were restrained from instituting any action against Board of 

Trustees on their respective claims. (Id.) The court also ordered Plaintiff to deposit with 

the Court Clerk a check for $23,440.75, plus any applicable interest, representing the death 

benefit. (Id.) Plaintiff deposited the funds on December 6, 2019.

On December 9, 2019, Plaintiff filed its motion for fees and costs. (Doc. No. 14.) 

As of the date of this order, no opposition to the fee request has been filed. 

II. Discussion

“Generally, courts have discretion to award attorney fees to a disinterested 

stakeholder in an interpleader action.” Abex Corp. v. Ski’s Enterprises, Inc., 748 F.2d 513, 

516 (9th Cir. 1984) (citation omitted); Schirmer Stevedoring Co. Ltd. v. Seaboard 

Stevedoring Corp., 306 F.2d 188, 194 (9th Cir. 1962) (a party “should be awarded attorney 

fees for the services of his attorneys in interpleading.”) “The amount of fees to be awarded 

in an interpleader action is committed to the sound discretion of the district court.” Trustees 

of Directors Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426 (9th 

Cir. 2000). “As a general matter, a court will award fees from the proceeds whenever: ‘(1) 

the party seeking fees is a disinterested stakeholder; (2) who had conceded liability; (3) has 

deposited the funds into court; and (4) has sought a discharge from liability.’” Wells Fargo 

Bank, Nat’l Ass’n v. PACCAR Fin. Corp., No. 1-08-cv-00904-AWI-JMS, 2009 WL 

211386, at *2 (Jan. 28, 2009) (quoting Septembertide Publ’g v. Stein & Day, Inc., 

884 F.2d 675, 683 (2d. Cir. 1989).

It is clear to the court that Board of Trustees has no interest in the funds and that it 

has done nothing untoward. The Board of Trustees has attempted to distribute the death 

benefits to the intended beneficiaries and then took the appropriate action by filing the 

complaint in interpleader. Moreover, there has been no opposition filed by the only 

 

1 Document numbers and page references are to those assigned by CM/ECF for the docket 

entry. 

Case 3:19-cv-00364-JM-AGS Document 16 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 6
5 

19cv364 JM(AGS) 

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

defendant who has appeared in this matter. Therefore, the court concludes that an award 

of attorney’s fees is warranted.

The Board of Trustees engaged the law firm of Melissa W. Cook & Associates. 

Plaintiff’s counsel, Jason J. Kennedy, declares that the law firm has performed 39.6 hours

of work on this matter for a total fee of $11,915.00 fees but, given the small sum of money 

involved, “Plaintiff is willing to accept $5,000 in attorney’s fees.” (Doc. No. 14-2 at ¶¶ 

6,7.) Plaintiff also seeks $757.57 in costs. (Id. at ¶ 8.). The court finds the request 

reasonable as the law firm was engaged to bring the interpleader action, conducted multiple 

telephone calls with relevant parties, including the insurance company and potential 

beneficiaries, drafted the complaint, and a review of the costs illustrates they are for 

effectuating service, filing the complaint, photocopies and postage. (See Doc. No. 14-2 at 

3-8.) These types of fees and costs are compensable. See Trustees of Directors Guild of 

Am.–Producer Pension Benefits Plans, 234 F.3d at 426 (compensable expenses include 

“preparing the complaint, obtaining service of process on the claimants to the fund, and 

preparing an order discharging the plaintiff from liability and dismissing it from action.”). 

Accordingly, the court awards Plaintiff $5,756.57 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2361, in “any civil action of interpleader” a district court 

may discharge the plaintiff in interpleader from further liability, enjoin the parties from 

instituting further actions related to the stake, and make all other appropriate orders. See

Sun Life Assurance Co of Can. v. Chan’s Estate, No. C-03-2205 SC, 2003 WL 22227881, 

at *2 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 22, 2003) (“If an interpleading plaintiff has no interest in the stake 

he should be dismissed”) (quoting Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Foley, 2002 WL 31399787 at *4

(E.D. La., Oct. 22, 2002)). Here, since the Board of Trustees has no discernable interest in 

this litigation other than distributing the death benefits and has fulfilled this obligation by 

depositing the death benefits with the Clerk of Court, the court finds discharging the Board 

of Trustees from the case is appropriate without any further motion practice. See, e.g., 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) (a disinterested stakeholder should be readily discharged from 

Case 3:19-cv-00364-JM-AGS Document 16 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 5 of 6
Case 3:19-cv-00364-JM-AGS Document 16 Filed 04/20/20 PageID.<pageID> Page 6 of 6