Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Pharmatech, LLC

District Court, M.D. Florida·Decided October 3, 2019·No. 8:18-cv-02550·Unknown

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD’S OF LONDON subscribing to policy number GLX0843-01, Plaintiff, v. CASE NO. 8:18-cv-2550-T-02AAS PHARMATECH LLC, et al., Defendants. /

O R D E R This cause comes before the Court pursuant to Plaintiff’s Motion for Default

Judgment (Dkt. 255). Plaintiff seeks default judgment against the twelve consumer claimant-defendants. In this interpleader action, service of process was effected or waived by the

following Defendants: James Kregg Barentine, Lorraine Cummings, Ursula Dixon, Fancher Harrell, Jami Jackson, Blake Kubicki, Angelo Mancini, Lorin Moncrief, Hayli Pair, Cheryl Robinson, John Smith, and Shirley Weinelt.1 Each has failed to

1 The chart on pages 3 through 5 of Plaintiff’s motion show the docket entries coinciding with the dates of either service waived or summons served for each of these twelve Defendants. Dkt. 255. plead or otherwise defend. “The failure of a named interpleader defendant to answer the interpleader complaint . . . can be viewed as forfeiting any claim of

entitlement that might have been asserted.” Gen. Accident Grp. v. Gagliardi, 593 F.Supp. 1080, 1089 (D. Conn. 1984); see also State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wagnon, 959 F.2d 245 (10th Cir. 1992) (citing Gagliardi).2

Accordingly, after careful review of the motion, applicable law, and the entire file, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED: 1) The Clerk is directed to enter a clerk’s default against Defendants

James Kregg Barentine, Lorraine Cummings, Ursula Dixon, Fancher Harrell, Jami Jackson, Blake Kubicki, Angelo Mancini, Lorin Moncrief, Hayli Pair, Cheryl Robinson, John Smith, and Shirley Weinelt.

2) Plaintiff’s Motion for Default Final Judgment (Dkt. 255) is granted. 3) After the Clerk enters a clerk’s default against the Defendants listed in paragraph 1, the Clerk is directed to enter a final default judgment in favor of

Plaintiff against Defendants James Kregg Barentine, Lorraine Cummings, Ursula Dixon, Fancher Harrell, Jami Jackson, Blake Kubicki, Angelo Mancini, Lorin

2 See also Minnesota Life Ins. Co. v. Wilmington Trust Co., No. 3:14-cv-443-TAV- CCS, 2016 WL 868221, at *2 (E.D. Tenn. Mar. 4, 2016) (discharging insurance company plaintiff in interpleader action from further liability as to defendant who failed to answer or defend); Conseco Life Ins. Co. v. Murphy-Moreno, No. 6:13-cv-161-Orl-31GJK, 2013 WL 3353325, at *1 (M.D. Fla. July 2, 2013) (citing Gagliardi). -2- Moncrief, Hayli Pair, Cheryl Robinson, John Smith, and Shirley Weinelt. The judgment should contain the following language: “Defendants James Kregg

Barentine, Lorraine Cummings, Ursula Dixon, Fancher Harrell, Jami Jackson, Blake Kubicki, Angelo Mancini, Lorin Moncrief, Hayli Pair, Cheryl Robinson, John Smith, and Shirley Weinelt are permanently enjoined from asserting any claim

against the funds on deposit with the Clerk of Court (and which are the subject of this action), and from instituting or prosecuting any action or proceeding against Plaintiff affecting the policy at issue, or otherwise relating to the funds on deposit

with the Clerk of Court. Plaintiff’s liability to these Defendants under the policy or relating to the funds on deposit is hereby discharged.” DONE AND ORDERED at Tampa, Florida, on October 3, 2019.

s/William F. Jung WILLIAM F. JUNG UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE COPIES FURNISHED TO: Counsel of Record and unrepresented parties, if any

-3-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Pharmatech, LLC, (M.D. Fla. 2019).

Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Pharmatech, LLC (Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's of London v. Pharmatech, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Wagnon
959 F.2d 245 (Tenth Circuit, 1992)
General Accident Group v. Gagliardi
593 F. Supp. 1080 (D. Connecticut, 1984)