Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company v. Matejov ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 | Variable Annuity Life Insurance Co., No. 2:22-cv-00377-KJM-DB 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. James Matejov & Lawrence Davis, 1S Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Variable Annuity Life Insurance Company (VALIC) brought this interpleader 18 | action to resolve competing claims to death benefits made by defendants James Matejov and 19 | Lawrence Davis, as trustee and sole beneficiary of Sharyl A. Davis Revocable Living Trust 20 | (Trust). VALIC, James Matejov and Lawrence Davis filed the pending joint motion for discharge 21 | and dismissal with prejudice. See generally Mot., ECF No. 6. The court took the matter under 22 | submission without oral argument, ECF No. 7. As explained below, the court grants the joint 23 | motion. 24 On February 2, 2005, Sharyl Davis enrolled in VALIC’s Alta California Regional 403(b) 25 | Plan (403(b) Plan). Compl. ¥ 7 & Ex. B, ECF No. 1. Ms. Davis initially designated her two 26 | children, Lawrence Davis and Leah Davis, as the primary beneficiaries. /d. 8 & Ex. B. On 27 | August 27, 2006, however, Sharyl Davis established the Trust and designated her then-husband 28 | James Matejov as the trustee and her son Lawrence Davis as the successor trustee. Id. □ 9 & 1 Ex. C. On September 20, 2006, Sharyl Davis designated James Matejov as the 403(b) Plan’s 2 primary beneficiary and designated the Trust as the contingent beneficiary. Id. ¶¶ 10–11 & 3 Ex. D. 4 On March 20, 2015, the Trust designated Lawrence Davis as its sole beneficiary. Id. ¶ 12 5 & Ex. C. Three days later, Sharyl Davis and James Matejov filed for divorce, and under their 6 judgment of dissolution, Sharyl Davis retained all property rights to the 403(b) Plan. Id. ¶¶ 13–14 7 & Ex. E. On July 12, 2020, Sharyl Davis died. Id. ¶ 15. Subsequently, James Matejov and 8 Lawrence Davis filed their competing claims to the death benefits under the 403(b). Id. ¶¶ 17–18 9 & Exs. F, G. 10 On March 1, 2022, plaintiff VALIC filed this interpleader action to address the 11 defendants’ competing claims. See generally id. On May 4, 2022, James Matejov and Lawrence 12 Davis informed VALIC that they had resolved their competing claims, and they requested that, 13 instead of depositing the disputed funds with the court, VALIC distribute fifty percent of the 14 death benefits to James Matejov and Lawrence Davis, respectively. Mot. at 3; Proposed Order at 15 1, ECF No. 6-2. VALIC agreed to follow this request, and the parties jointly filed this motion to 16 discharge and dismiss with prejudice. Id. 17 In determining whether to sign the parties’ proposed order, the court considers the 18 provisions of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, and evaluates the defendants’ claims to the 19 single fund. Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010, 1023–24 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Rhoades 20 v. Casey, 196 F.3d 592, 600 (5th Cir. 1999)). Interpleader actions are permitted when a 21 stakeholder faces multiple claims to a single fund. Lee v. W. Coast Life. Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 22 1009 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, VALIC properly brought this interpleader action where both James 23 Matejov and Lawrence Davis claimed the entirety of the death benefits. That James Matejov and 24 Lawrence Davis have now settled their competing claims, Mot. at 3, supports the parties’ 25 proposal for discharge and dismissal. 26 The court grants VALIC’s motion. VALIC is discharged and this entire action is 27 dismissed with prejudice. This case is CLOSED. 28 ///// 1 This order resolves ECF No. 6. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 3 DATED: July 12, 2022.