COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 1 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

EL PASO DIVISION 

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE § 

COMPANY (U.S.A.), § 

 § 

Plaintiff, § 

 § 

v. § C.A. No. 3:20-cv-152 

 § 

ELIZABETH CABRERA, TANYA § 

LEE KLINE, JASON JOSE CABRERA, § 

AND JENNIFER ALEXIS CABRERA, § 

 § 

Defendants. § 

COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER 

Plaintiff John Hancock Life Insurance Company (U.S.A) (“John Hancock”) files this 

Complaint for Interpleader, and states: 

I. PARTIES 

1. Plaintiff. John Hancock is an Michigan insurance company with its principal place 

of business in Boston, Massachusetts, and does business in Texas. 

2. Defendant Elizabeth Cabrera. Defendant and claimant Elizabeth Cabrera 

(“Elizabeth”), is an individual and citizen of Texas, and currently resides and may be served with 

process at 220 Frontera Rd., El Paso, Texas 79922. 

3. Defendant Tanya Lee Kline. Defendant and claimant Tanya Lee Kline (“Tanya”), 

is an individual and citizen of Arizona, and currently resides and may be served with process at 

2615 Arroyo Verde, Sierra Vista, Arizona 85650. 

4. Defendant Jason Jose Cabrera. Defendant and claimant Jason Jose Cabrera 

(“Jason”) is an individual and citizen of Arizona, and currently resides and may be served with 

process at 1109 Via Cabrillo, Sierra Vista, Arizona 85635. 

Case 3:20-cv-00152-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 1 of 5
COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 2 

5. Defendant Jennifer Alexis Cabrera. Defendant and claimant Jennifer Alexis 

Cabrera (“Jennifer”) is an individual and citizen of Arizona, and currently resides and may be 

served with process at 6420 E Calle Luna, Tucson, Arizona 85710. 

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 

6. Jurisdiction. This is an interpleader action to deposit the death benefit of a life 

insurance policy into the Court’s registry pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, and this 

Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. John Hancock is a citizen of Michigan and 

Defendants are citizens of Texas and Arizona, and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, 

exclusive of interest and costs.

7. Venue. Venue is proper in this district and division pursuant to 28 

U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1). 

III. OPERATIVE FACTS 

8. The Policy. John Hancock issued Modified Premium Whole Life Policy 

066937058 (the “Policy”) to Felix Cabrera (the “Insured”). The Policy provided $125,000.00 in 

life insurance coverage (the “Policy Proceeds”). When the Insured applied for the Policy on 

October 22, 1992, the Insured designated as the primary beneficiary under the Policy his then wife, 

Tanya. The insured also indicated on the application that he intended any children born of his 

marriage to Tanya as the contingent beneficiaries.1

 Upon information and belief, the only children 

between the Insured and Tanya are Jason and Jennifer. The Insured never made any changes to 

the Policy’s beneficiary designation beyond the initial designation on the Policy application 

submitted on October 22, 1992. 

 1

 The Insured specifically wrote on the application that the beneficiary of the Policy is “Tanya wife if living, 

otherwise born of the marriage equally or the survivor.” 

Case 3:20-cv-00152-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 2 of 5
COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 3 

9. The Divorce. On January 8, 1996, the Insured and Tanya became divorced. The 

divorce decree between the Insured and Thurman does not identify or address the Policy. 

10. The Second Marriage. On March 10, 1999, the Insured married Elizabeth. 

11. Death of the Insured. The Insured died on December 9, 2018. 

12. John Hancock’s Possible Double or Multiple Liability. On or about June 12, 

2019, John Hancock received correspondence from Elizabeth requesting information regarding the 

Policy Proceeds and submitting a claim to the Policy Proceeds in her capacity as the Insured’s 

surviving spouse. Because Elizabeth is not the primary or the contingent beneficiary on the Policy, 

John Hancock sent correspondence to Tanya, Jason, and Jennifer seeking information from them 

on whether they are asserting a claim the Policy Proceeds as well. While John Hancock has not 

received any communications back from Jason or Jennifer, on February 27, 2020, Tanya submitted 

a claim to the Policy Proceeds asserting entitlement as the primary beneficiary on the Policy. On 

multiple occasions since receiving Tanya’s claim, Elizabeth has reasserted her claim to the Policy 

Proceeds to the exclusion of any other persons, including any claim asserted or assertable by 

Tanya, Jason, or Jennifer. 

13. Rival Claims. John Hancock has a good faith and reasonable doubt as to whom—

between Elizabeth, Tanya, and Jason and Jennifer—is entitled to the Policy Proceeds for the 

following reasons. Although Texas Family Code § 9.301 would seemingly invalidate the Insured’s 

designation of Tanya as primary beneficiary in light of his subsequent divorce from her on January 

8, 1996, Tanya nonetheless asserts entitlement to the Policy Proceeds. If § 9.301 of the Texas 

Family Code does invalidate Tanya’s beneficiary status, then Jason and Jennifer may be entitled 

to the Policy Proceeds as contingent beneficiaries. Lastly, Elizabeth claims to be entitled to the 

Policy Proceeds as the surviving spouse with a spousal interest pursuant to Texas community 

Case 3:20-cv-00152-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 3 of 5
COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 4 

property law. As a result, John Hancock seeks resolution of conflicting and potentially conflicting 

claims in good faith. John Hancock is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability. John 

Hancock has no interest whatsoever in the Policy Proceeds other than fulfilling its contractual 

obligation to pay the sums due to the appropriate party. Accordingly, John Hancock has no 

independent liability to any of the Defendants and is a disinterested stakeholder in this case. John 

Hancock therefore desires to interplead the Policy Proceeds. John Hancock admits liability for the 

Policy Proceeds and tenders same to the Court. 

IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 

14. Interpleader. John Hancock interpleads Defendants pursuant to Rule 22 of the 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. John Hancock has a good faith doubt as to whom the Policy 

Proceeds are owed. John Hancock admits its obligation to pay the Policy Proceeds, but cannot 

pay those Policy Proceeds in the face of possible competing claims without subjecting itself to the 

possibility of double or multiple liability. John Hancock is a disinterested stakeholder with respect 

to the Policy Proceeds and claims no beneficial interest therein, except for attorneys’ fees and costs 

incurred in connection with this interpleader. Furthermore, John Hancock has no independent 

liability to any claimant in this interpleader. John Hancock shall, upon the granting of its 

interpleader, pay into the Registry of the Court the Policy Proceeds, plus accrued interest. 

15. Attorneys’ Fees. John Hancock is entitled to its reasonable and necessary 

attorneys’ fees and costs in connection with its claim for interpleader. 

V. PRAYER 

22. Relief Requested. John Hancock respectfully requests the following relief: 

 (a) That Defendants be served with process and be required to 

answer in the time and manner prescribed by law; 

 (b) That Defendants be required to interplead and settle among 

themselves their rights and claims to the Policy Proceeds; 

Case 3:20-cv-00152-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 4 of 5
COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER PAGE 5 

 (c) That the Court enter an order enjoining and restraining 

Defendants from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in 

any state or United States court affecting the Policy involved 

in this interpleader action; 

 (d) That on final hearing, Defendants for themselves, their heirs, 

legal representatives, and assigns, and all other persons 

claiming by, through, or under them, be permanently 

enjoined and restrained from instituting or prosecuting any 

proceeding in any state or United States court against John 

Hancock relating to the Policy; 

 (e) That John Hancock be awarded its reasonable attorneys’ fees 

and court costs in connection with the interpleader; 

 (f) That John Hancock be fully and finally discharged from 

further liability to Defendants, and all other persons claiming 

by, through, or under them; and 

(g) That this Court grant all such other and further relief, both 

general and special, at law and in equity, to which John 

Hancock may show itself justly entitled. 

Dated: May 29, 2020 Respectfully submitted, 

By: /s/ Nicole H. Muñoz 

Andrew G. Jubinsky 

Texas Bar No. 11043000 

andy.jubinsky@figdav.com

Nicole H. Muñoz 

Texas Bar No. 24098153 

nicole.munoz@figdav.com 

FIGARI + DAVENPORT, LLP 

901 Main Street, Suite 3400 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Telephone: (214) 939-2000 

Facsimile: (214) 939-2090 

ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY

Case 3:20-cv-00152-DCG Document 1 Filed 05/29/20 Page 5 of 5