MacPherson-Pomeroy v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BARBARA MACPHERSON-POMEROY, No. 1:20-cv-00092-ADA-BAM 12 Plaintiff, ORDER AMENDING THE COURT’S APRIL 8, 2022 ORDER GRANTING 13 v. PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO INCLUDE AN EXPRESS 14 NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR FINDING OF FINALITY PURSUANT TO L IFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, FED. R. CIV. P. 54(b) 15 Defendants. (ECF No. 100) 16 17 NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, 18 Counterclaim Plaintiff, 19 v. 20 BARBARA MACPHERSON-POMEROY, 21 Counterclaim Defendant. 22 NORTH AMERICAN COMPANY FOR LIFE AND HEALTH INSURANCE, 23 24 Third-Party Plaintiff, v. 25 MELANIE RODRIGUEZ and DEBANEE 26 MACPHERSON UDALL, 27 Third-Party Defendants. 28 1 I. 2 Procedural Background 3 This case stems from Plaintiff Barbara MacPherson-Pomeroy’s efforts to claim a life 4 insurance policy, numbered LB02834040, that Defendant North American Company for Life and 5 Health Insurance issued on the life of her husband Casey MacPherson-Pomeroy (hereinafter “the 6 policy”). On December 16, 2019, Plaintiff filed a complaint in California state court against 7 Defendant asserting claims for breach of contract and breach of the covenant of good faith and 8 fair dealing. (ECF No. 1 at 17–28.) Defendant removed the action to federal court on January 9 17, 2020. (ECF No. 1.) On February 21, 2020, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint as 10 well as a counterclaim and third-party complaint for interpleader against Melanie Rodriguez and 11 Debanee Udall, secondary beneficiaries of the policy. (ECF No. 14.) In March 2020, Defendant 12 deposited its admitted liability of $1,504,346.75 – the amount of the policy plus accrued interest – 13 with the Register of the Court, pending a determination as to whether Plaintiff or the secondary 14 beneficiaries were entitled to the proceeds. (See ECF No. 16.) 15 On March 31, 2021, Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the third-party complaint 16 for interpleader, or, in the alternative, to summarily adjudicate the adverse claims of Ms. Udall, 17 the only remaining claimant to the interpleader funds. (ECF No. 76.) Ms. Udall did not file an 18 opposition, and, on April 8, 2022, the Court issued an order granting Plaintiff’s motion for 19 summary judgment. (ECF No. 100.) The Court held that the interpleader was procedurally 20 proper, that Plaintiff had carried her burden of establishing that she is entitled to the life insurance 21 policy proceeds, dismissed Ms. Udall’s claims with prejudice, and directed the Clerk of Court to 22 enter judgment in Plaintiff’s favor. (Id. at 14, 17–18.) The clerk entered judgment in favor of 23 Plaintiff that same day. (ECF No. 101.) 24 On June 20, 2022, Plaintiff filed a motion for disbursement of the interpleader funds, 25 minus a reasonable amount of attorney fees for Defendant. (ECF No. 115.) Because Defendant 26 is a disinterested stakeholder in the interpleader action, it did not oppose the release of funds to 27 Plaintiff, but it did file an opposition requesting (1) that the Court award attorneys’ fees and costs 28 and discharge Defendant prior to releasing funds to Plaintiff, and (2) that the Court make a 1 finding under Federal Rule of Procedure 54(b) prior to disbursing the interpleader funds. (ECF 2 No. 125.) To expedite the release of undisputed funds to Plaintiff, the parties filed a stipulation 3 on September 13, 2022. (ECF No. 142.) In their stipulation, the parties requested that the Court 4 amend the April 8, 2022 order granting Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment to include an 5 express finding of finality pursuant to Rule 54(b). 6 II. 7 Discussion 8 The parties did not ask the Court to make an express finding of finality when it filed its 9 order in April. Nor has any party sought leave of the Court to file an appeal from that order. To 10 the extent that the Court did not make an express finding of finality at the time it originally issued 11 its order, it does so now nunc pro tunc. 12 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) states, 13 When an action presents more than one claim for relief – whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim – or when 14 multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only 15 if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. 16 Rule 54(b) allows parties to avoid an unjust delay in judgment on distinct claims during 17 the pendency of a larger case. See Gelboim v. Bank of America Corp., 574 U.S. 405, 409 (2015). 18 To determine whether to certify a case as final, courts must consider “judicial administrative 19 interests as well as the equities involved.” Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Gen. Elec. Co., 446 U.S. 1, 8 20 (1980). Some factors the Supreme Court has found helpful in making this determination are 21 “whether the claims under review are separable from the others remaining to be adjudicated and 22 whether the nature of the claims already determined was such that no appellate court would have 23 to decide the same issue more than once even if there were subsequent appeals.” Id. 24 Regarding the judicial administrative interests at issue in this case, the Court finds that 25 entry of judgment and appealability of the April 8, 2022 order would not generate the kind of 26 piecemeal litigation against which Rule 54(b) protects. See id. The original and ongoing dispute 27 in this case involves claims of breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith 28 and fair dealing between Barbara MacPherson-Pomeroy and North American Company for Life 1 | and Health Insurance. Entitlement to the proceeds is no longer an issue in this case. Considering 2 | the equities, because Barbara MacPherson-Pomeroy is the sole party entitled to the life insurance 3 | proceeds, the Court finds there is no reason to delay any longer their distribution to her. 4 Accordingly, 5 1. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), the Court determines that there 6 is no just reason to delay enforcement or appeal of its April 8, 2022 order, (ECF 7 No. 100); 8 2. This order is effective, nunc pro tunc, from April 8, 2022. 9 10 11 | TPIS SO ORDERED. 12 Dated: _ October 26, 2022 3 UNITED fTATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28