Genworth Life and Annuity Insurance Company v. Call

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: November 16, 2020
• Docket: 3:20-cv-05473
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 7 GENWORTH LIFE AND ANNUITY CASE NO. C20-5473 BHS 8 INSURANCE COMPANY, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S 9 Plaintiff, MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ v. FEES AND COSTS 10 KAREN M. CALL, et al., 11 Defendants. 12

13 This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff Genworth Life and Annuity 14 Insurance Company’s (“Genworth”) motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. Dkt. 38. The 15 Court has considered the pleadings filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and 16 the remainder of the file and hereby grants the motion for the reasons stated herein. 17 I. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 18 On May 20, 2020, Genworth filed this interpleader action against Defendants 19 Karen Call (“Call”), Rebecca Ronzone (“Ronzone”), R.A.R., Anjunette Armour 20 (“Armour”), and Jeffrey Stephens (“Stephens”) (collectively “Defendants”) alleging that 21 22 1 it issued a life insurance policy to Michael Ronzone (“Decedent”) and that Defendants 2 contest the proceeds of that policy. Dkt. 1.

3 On September 23, 2020, Genworth filed the instant motion requesting 4 reimbursement for attorneys’ fees and costs incurred before and during this interpleader 5 action. Dkt. 38. On September 29, 2020, Call responded and does not oppose the 6 motion. Dkt. 40. On September 30, 2020, Armour responded and does not oppose the 7 motion. Dkt. 41. On October 2, 2020, Stephens responded and opposes the motion to the 8 extent that the fees and costs will be paid from the proceeds of the policy. Dkt. 44. On

9 October 8, 2020, Armour replied. Dkt. 47. 10 II. DISCUSSION 11 “Generally, courts have discretion to award attorney fees to a disinterested 12 stakeholder in an interpleader action.” Abex Corp. v. Ski’s Enterprises, Inc., 748 F.2d 13 513, 516 (9th Cir. 1984) (citing Gelfgren v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 680 F.2d 79, 81

14 (9th Cir. 1982)). The interpleading “plaintiff should be awarded attorney fees for the 15 services of his attorneys in interpleading” so long as there is no “contest between plaintiff 16 and the interpleaded parties, either as to the correctness of the amount deposited or as to 17 any interest of plaintiff in the fund.” Schirmer Stevedoring Co. Ltd. v. Seaboard 18 Stevedoring Corp., 306 F.2d 188, 194 (9th Cir. 1962).

19 In this case, Genworth argues that it is a disinterested stakeholder because, through 20 no fault of its own, the proceeds of the policy are contested by Defendants. It also argues 21 that there is no contest between it and any named defendant. The Court agrees on these 22 two unopposed issues. The only remaining opposed issue is whether Genworth’s fees 1 and costs should be disbursed from the funds of the proceeds. Stephens argues that 2 Armour should be responsible for the fees and costs incurred in this litigation because she

3 started the litigation. Although Armour disputes Stephens’s position, the issue need not 4 be resolved at this point because the Court may tax these costs and fees against the 5 responsible parties once liability is determined. In other words, the Court retains the 6 authority to tax Genworth’s fees and costs “against the losing claimants.” Schirmer, 306 7 F.2d at 195. Thus, at this point, the Court concludes that Genworth should be reimbursed 8 now and ultimate responsibility for the reimbursement may be resolved later.

9 III. ORDER 10 Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Genworth’s motion for attorneys’ fees and 11 costs, Dkt. 38, is GRANTED. Genworth shall contact the Court’s finance department 12 and submit a proposed order with appropriate language for a disbursement from the 13 Court’s registry.

14 Dated this 16th day of November, 2020. A 15 16 BENJAMIN H. SETTLE 17 United States District Judge

18 19 20 21 22