In Re Benefits for Primerica Policy Numbers Ending in 2084 and 3112

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION IN RE BENEFITS FOR PRIMERCA POLICY NUMBERS ENDING IN 2084 AND 3112 Case No. 5:23-cv-518-JA-PRL RASHAWN THOMPSON, J.P., D.P., O.J., NEVILLE GRAHAM, RICHARD GRAHAM, and DONOVAN PASMORE, Claimants.

ORDER Before the Court is the second amended motion of cross-claimants J.P. Donovan Pasmore, and D.P. (the cross-claimants) for entry of default judgment against Neville Graham and Richard Graham (the Grahams).! (Doc. 58). Previously, the cross-claimants’ motion for default judgment was denied without prejudice due to their failure to seek the Clerk’s entry of default first. (Doc. 52). The Clerk has now entered default against the Grahams. (Doc. 54). After the Clerk entered default, the cross-claimants filed their first amended motion for default judgment. (Doc. 54; Doc. 55). However, that motion did not set forth the elements of each cause of action or show how the well-

1 0.J. consents to the filing of this motion. (Doc. 55 { 20; Doc. 58 J 7, 10, 17).

pleaded allegations of the cross-claims (Doc. 47) established each of thos elements. To reduce motions practice, the Court directed the cross-claimants to fil a supplement to the first amended motion for default judgment tha demonstrated that they were entitled to default judgment. (Doc. 57). □□□□□□□ the cross-claimants filed a second amended motion for default judgment.2 (Doc 58). While this motion, unlike its predecessors, sets forth some of the element of the cross-claimants’ causes of action, it is still insufficient. (See Doc. 57). First, the cross-claimants assert four counts against the Grahams. (Doc 47). However, the second amended motion for default judgment combines □□□ second and third counts, and thus it only addresses three claims. (Doc. 58). I is unclear if the cross-claimants are pursuing final default judgment as to al counts or some counts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b) (setting forth standard □□□ granting default judgment on some claims, but not all). Second, the cross-claimants do not provide any law as to the fourtl count—“policy number 3112.” And the Court has difficulty assuming that this count asserts a claim for declaratory judgment because the other policy at issue (policy number 2084) is not listed as a count in the cross-complaint. Ultimately, the Court cannot discern what cross-claims are asserted here and if the cross-

2 The second amended motion for default judgment (Doc. 58) renders the first amended motion for default judgment (Doc. 55) MOOT. (Doc. 55).

claimants are seeking default judgment as to all of their counts. According]; the cross-claimants’ second amended motion for default judgment (Doc. 58) 1 DENIED. As previously stated, the cross-claimants’ first amended motion fo default judgment (Doc. 55) is DENIED as moot. Finally, it does not appear that the cross-complaint is pleaded consistent] with Florida law or interpleader actions. For example, to show the elements c the first count, “decedent’s mental capacity,” the cross-claimants cite John Kno Village of Tampa Bay, Inc. v. Perry, 94 So. 3d 715, 717 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) However, Perry does not address a claim for “mental capacity;” the issue ther was whether an arbitration agreement was valid and required dismissal of th lawsuit. Compare id., with Allstate Life Ins. v. Lewis, No. 6:12-cv-1019, 201: WL 13137014 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 3, 2012) (granting motion for default judgment i interpleader action where cross-plaintiff alleged that cross-defendant forgec decedent’s signature on change of beneficiary form or that decedent signec without lucid mind). Instead, interpleader actions such as these seem t typically involve straightforward claims for declaratory relief as to th beneficiary of specific insurance policies. See Lewis, 2012 WL 131370 14, at *2 see also Transameria Premier Life Ins. v. Covert, No. 1:19-cv-110, 2020 WI 968691, at *3 (N.D. Fla. Jan. 6, 2020) (citing Primerica Life Ins. v. Braswell, No 5:17-cv-330, 2017 WL 5631517, at *2 (M.D. Fla. Nov. 22, 2017)).

Accordingly, within fourteen days of the entry date of this Order, th cross-claimants shall file an amended cross-complaint. That amended cross complaint should clearly state the relief requested. The cross-claimants mus serve a copy of the amended cross-claim on the Grahams and, if necessary, see the Clerk’s entry of default in compliance with the Federal Rules of Civ: Procedure and Local Rule 1.10. See M.D. Fla. Local R. 1.10. DONE and ORDERED on December [3_, 2024.

Pie: \ JQHN ANTOON II United States District Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties