Banner Life Insurance Company v. Rocha

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: June 20, 2025
• Docket: 1:25-cv-00207
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BANNER LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:25-cv-00207-CDB

12 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTION 13 v. FOR ORDER TO DEPOSIT INTERPLEADER FUNDS PURSUANT TO FED. R CIV. P. 67 14 EDUARDO ROCHA, et al., (Doc. 6) 15 Defendants. 14-DAY DEADLINE 16 17 18 Pending before the Court is the application of Interpleader Plaintiff Banner Life Insurance 19 Company (“Banner”) for leave to deposit funds pursuant to Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil 20 Procedure, filed February 18, 2025. (Doc. 6). No party has filed an opposition and because the time to 21 do so has passed, the Court construes the motion is unopposed. See Local Rule 230(c) (“A failure to 22 file a timely opposition may also be construed by the Court as a non-opposition to the motion.”). For 23 the reasons set forth below, Banner’s motion is granted. 24 Background 25 According to the allegations of the complaint, Banner issued a life insurance policy to Juana 26 Rocha (“Decedent”) on November 14, 2019, in the amount of $250,000.00. (Doc. 1 ⁋ 11; Doc. 1-1 at 27 2). She designated her husband, Defendant Eduardo Rocha, as the sole primary beneficiary and her four 28 children, Defendants Eva Rocha, Ivan Rocha, Arlene Rocha, and Aaron Rocha, as contingent 1 beneficiaries entitled to equal 25% shares. (Doc. 1 ⁋ 12). 2 Juana Rocha died from a gunshot wound on or about June 19, 2021, in Delano, California. Id. 3 ⁋ 13. The investigating law enforcement agency considered Eduardo Rocha the prime suspect and, as 4 of January 2025, he remains a suspect. Id. ⁋⁋ 14-15. No one has yet been charged in connection with 5 Juana Rocha’s death. Id. ⁋ 16. Plaintiff asserts that, due to applicable federal and state law barring 6 payment of death benefits where a named beneficiary kills the insurance holder, Banner has not 7 distributed any of the death benefits to any Defendant. Id. ⁋⁋ 17-20. 8 Plaintiff asserts that, if it is established that Eduardo Rocha forfeited his interest in the death 9 benefits, then Defendants Eva, Ivan, Arlene, and Aaron Rocha would each be entitled to a 25% share of 10 the total benefit amount. Id. ⁋ 21. Plaintiff provides that, thus, the competing interests and potentially 11 conflicting claims of the named Defendants, namely Eduardo Rocha on the one hand and the other four 12 Defendants on the other, give rise to a “real and reasonable fear of exposure on Banner’s part to double 13 liability and multiple litigation if Banner paid the Policy’s death benefits to any of the Defendants.” Id. 14 ⁋ 22. Plaintiff states that it is a disinterested stakeholder, claims no interest in the death benefits, and 15 seeks to discharge its “admitted liability under the Policy by depositing the Policy’s death benefits with 16 this Court.” Id. ⁋⁋ 23-24. 17 Plaintiff filed the pending motion for interpleader deposit on February 18, 2025 (Doc. 6). On 18 March 21, 2025, the Court vacated the hearing on Plaintiff’s motion for interpleader deposit and held 19 the motion in abeyance pending Plaintiff’s filing of evidence demonstrating service upon Defendants of 20 summons and complaint. (Doc. 9). Subsequently, Plaintiff filed an executed waiver of service for each 21 Defendant (Docs. 10-14) and a notice rescheduling the hearing on the motion for interpleader deposit 22 for May 30, 2025 (Doc. 17), which was served upon Defendants Eva, Ivan, Arlene, and Aaron Rocha 23 on April 25, 2025 (Doc. 33). Plaintiff also filed a proof of service of the motion papers, evidencing their 24 service on all Defendants on March 21, 2025. (Doc. 19). Eduardo Rocha filed an answer (Doc. 15) 25 and, after all other Defendants failed to respond to the complaint, the Clerk of the Court entered default 26 for each (Docs. 20, 29). Thereafter, Plaintiff filed a motion for default judgment as to Eva, Ivan, and 27 Arlene Rocha (Doc. 23) and a separate motion for default judgment as to Aaron Rocha (Doc. 30). Both 28 motions for default judgment are currently pending before the Court. 1 On May 30, 2025, the motion for interpleader deposit came before the Court for hearing. Vittorio 2 Fiore Terrizzi appeared on behalf of Plaintiff. John S. Dulcich appeared on behalf of Defendant Eduardo 3 Rocha. (Doc. 34). Defendants Eva, Ivan, Arlene, and Aaron Rocha did not make an appearance nor 4 did any representative on their behalf. 5 Discussion 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22(a) and 28 U.S.C. § 1335 permit a party to file an interpleader 7 claim when the party faces possible exposure to multiple liabilities from the defendants. “The purpose 8 of interpleader is for the stakeholder to protect itself against the problems posed by multiple claimants 9 in a single fund.” Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010, 1024 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotations 10 omitted). 11 In the instant motion, Banner seeks to deposit $250,000.00, plus applicable interest, under the 12 Decedent’s life insurance coverage. (Doc. 6-1 ⁋ 18). Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67, 13 “a party—on notice to every other party and by leave of court—may deposit with the court all or part of 14 the money or thing, whether or not that party claims any of it.” Fed. R. Civ. 67(a). “The core purpose 15 of Rule 67 is to relieve a party who holds a contested fund from responsibility for disbursement of that 16 fund among those claiming some entitlement thereto.” Lasheen v. Loomis Co., No. 2:01-cv-00227- 17 KJM-EFB, 2018 WL 4679305, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) (quoting Alstom Caribe, Inc. v. George 18 P. Reintjes Co., Inc., 484 F.3d 106, 113 (1st Cir. 2007)). The Court’s decision to allow the deposit of 19 property pursuant to Rule 67 is discretionary. Id. (citing Gulf States Util. Co. v. Alabama Power Co., 20 824 F.2d 1465, 1475 (5th Cir. 1987)). 21 Given the lack of objection by any opposition party, the Court finds that Banner may deposit the 22 plan benefits into the registry of the Court. 23 Conclusion and Order 24 For the forgoing reasons, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 25 1. Plaintiff Banner’s motion for order to deposit interpleader funds pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 67 (Doc. 6) is GRANTED; 27 2. Within 14 days of the date of entry of this order, Banner shall issue and deliver a check 28 payable to the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 1 in the amount of two-hundred-and-fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00), plus any applicab 2 interest; and 3 3. Banner shall cause a copy of this order to be personally served upon the Clerk of the Cou 4 or the Financial Deputy. 5 Further, the Clerk of the Court is HEREBY DIRECTED to accept such funds and hold the san 6 on deposit in the registry of the Court in an interest-bearing account or invest in an interest-bearit 7 instrument, there to abide by the judgment of the Court and for future disbursement to the person « 8 || persons adjudged by the Court to be entitled thereto. 9 || IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: _ June 20, 2025 | br Pr 11 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28