Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02918/USCOURTS-caed-2_06-cv-02918-4/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Rachel Billini
Defendant
Monique Diaz
Defendant
Nicole Diaz
Defendant
Pablo Diaz
Defendant
Regina Diaz
Defendant
Tiara Diaz
Defendant
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE

COMPANY,

NO. CIV. S-06-02918 WBS KJM

Plaintiff-in-Interpleader,

v. ORDER RE: ENTRY OF DEFAULT AND

DEFAULT JUDGMENT

RACHEL BILLINI; MONIQUE DIAZ;

NICOLE DIAZ; PABLO DIAZ; REGINA

DIAZ; TIARA DIAZ; and DOES 1

through 10, inclusive,

Defendants-in-Interpleader.

----oo0oo----

This is an interpeader action involving a dispute over

the proceeds of a life insurance policy administered by

plaintiff-in-interpleader Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

(“MetLife”). MetLife filed this action after receiving competing

claims on the policy from defendants-in-interpleader. In its

November 27, 2007 Order, this court dismissed MetLife from the

action and discharged MetLife, SBC Communications Inc. (“SBC”),

and the SBC Benefit Program from further liability. Metropolitan

Life Ins. Co. v. Billini, No. 06-02918, 2007 WL 4209405 (E.D.

Case 2:06-cv-02918-WBS -KJM Document 28 Filed 01/15/08 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

Cal. Nov. 27, 2007).

To avoid repetition and because the factual background

remains the same as in its November 27, 2007 Order, the court

will describe only the facts relevant to this order. Id. at *1-

*2. The primary dispute in this action is between decedent’s

five children--Pablo Diaz, Monique Diaz, Tiara Diaz, Nicole Diaz,

and Regina Diaz (“decedent’s children”)--and Rachel Billini, who

has claimed to be decedent’s niece. Decedent’s children have

been served and have filed an answer; however, Billini, who was

personally served on April 9, 2007, has not filed an answer. 

In the answer decedent’s children filed pro se, they

allege the factual reasons they believe they are entitled to the

benefits of their father’s life insurance policy. (Answer ¶¶ 9-

23.) In their final paragraph, decedent’s children allege: 

We . . . believe that we are rightfully entitled to our

father’s benefits (DECEDENT) per his wishes. . . . Prior

benefit forms prove this to be true contradicting the

form filed by BILLINI naming herself as sole beneficiary

and claiming blood relation.

(Id. at ¶ 23.) Billini received notice of these factual

allegations in MetLife’s complaint-in-interpleader. (Compl.

3:23-24, 5:15-16.) 

I. Billini’s Default

This action was commenced by the filing of a complaintin-interpleader and issuance of a summons on December 27, 2006. 

A copy of said summons and complaint-in-interpleader was

personally served upon defendant-in-interpleader Billini on April

9, 2007, and proof of such service was filed with this court on

April 10, 2007. 

Defendant Billini has failed to appear, answer, or

Case 2:06-cv-02918-WBS -KJM Document 28 Filed 01/15/08 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

otherwise move with respect to the complaint-in-interpleader, and

said defendant’s time to appear, answer, or otherwise move has

expired. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(a)(1)(A) (“[A] defendant shall

serve an answer within 20 days after being served with the

summons and complaint.”). 

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 55(a), the Clerk of this Court is instructed to enter

Billini’s default. See 10 Moore’s Federal Practice § 55.11[2]

(3d ed. 2007) (“[C]ourts have unanimously upheld their own power

to enter default as a sanction, or otherwise.”). 

II. Default Judgment

To enter default in favor of decedent’s children, the

facts alleged in the pleadings, when taken as true, must

establish that decedent’s children are entitled to the disputed

benefits. See Cripps v. Life Ins. Co. of N. Am., 980 F.2d 1261,

1267 (9th Cir. 1992) (“[N]ecessary facts not contained in the

pleadings, and claims which are legally insufficient, are not

established by default. Thus, [claimant] may prevail on the

merits if she can demonstrate that, taking the facts alleged in

the pleadings as true, [defaulting claimant] was not entitled to

relief.”) (internal citations omitted). 

At the scheduled Status Conference at 2:00 p.m. on

January 14, 2008, four of decedent’s children appeared

personally, and Regina Diaz testified under oath. Based on

Regina Diaz’s sworn testimony, and the uncontroverted allegations

in the pleadings, the court finds as follows.

On April 30, 2005, in the presence of his children,

decedent executed a third and final beneficiary form, naming his

Case 2:06-cv-02918-WBS -KJM Document 28 Filed 01/15/08 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

children as the sole beneficiaries of his plan benefits. (Answer

¶ 13.) Before executing the form, decedent told his children

that he did not intend for Billini to be his beneficiary and that

he wanted to change it to his children. Decedent’s children

believe that Billini executed undue influence on their father

when he was in a weakened state in order to persuade him to

designate her as a beneficiary. (Id. ¶ 20.) 

After decedent executed the form, decedent gave it to

Regina Diaz, who subsequently overnighted it from a United Parcel

Service of America, Inc. store in West Sacramento. The court

examined the receipt (no. 60814582), which verified that the form

was mailed on May 2, 2005 to the SBC Benefit Program at 930

Riverview Drive, Suite 800, Totowa, New Jersey, 07512-1156. The

receipt indicated that the estimated arrival date was May 3, 2005

at 10:30 a.m. 

The SBC Rules for Employee Beneficiary Designations

provide that a beneficiary designation is effective only if the

employee is “alive as of the time and date of the receipt of the

beneficiary designation.” (Compl. 3:26-27, Ex. B.) Decedent

passed away on May 3, 2005. (Id. at ¶ 15.) There is no reason

to believe the executed form was not in fact received on the

expected date, or that decedent died before the time it was

received. 

Therefore, the uncontroverted facts testified to under

oath and alleged in decedent’s children’s pleading establish that

the April 30, 2005 change in beneficiary form revoked any prior

designations and named decedent’s children as the sole

beneficiaries under decedent’s life insurance plan. 

Case 2:06-cv-02918-WBS -KJM Document 28 Filed 01/15/08 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

Accordingly, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 55(b)(1), decedent’s children are entitled to a default

judgment in their favor. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) default be, and the

same hereby is, entered against defendant-in-interpleader Billini

and, (2) upon entry of Billini’s default, default judgment be,

and the same hereby is, entered in favor of decedent’s children. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of this Court

distribute, in five equal portions to decedent’s children, the

$58,136.44, plus any accrued interest, which was deposited with

the Clerk of this Court on February 6, 2006, receipt number 202

17286.

DATED: January 14, 2008

Case 2:06-cv-02918-WBS -KJM Document 28 Filed 01/15/08 Page 5 of 5