Principal Life Insurance Company v. The Estate of Sergio Botello Diaz

Opinion

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9

10 PRINCIPAL LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Case No. 1:23-cv-00261-KES-CBD

11 Interpleader Plaintiff, ORDER

12 vs. Doc. 37 13 The Estate of SERGIO BOTELLO DIAZ, 14 ROGELIO BOTELLO DIAZ, an individual, GUADALUPE PANTOJA PEREZ, an 15 individual, JACKELIN BOTELLO, an individual, DEISY BOTELLO, an individual, 16 S.B., a minor, and M.B., a minor,

17 Interpleader Defendants. 18 19

20 On July 16, 2025, interpleader plaintiff Principal Life Insurance Company and interpleader 21 defendants Estate of Sergio Botello Diaz, Guadalupe Pantoja Perez, Jackelin Botello, Deisy 22 Botello, S.B., and M.B. (collectively, “the Signing Parties”) stipulated to the discharge of plaintiff 23 Principal Life Insurance Company and to the disbursement of the interpleaded funds to Jackelin 24 Botello, Deisy Botello, S.B., and M.B. All parties except interpleader defendant Rogelio Botello 25 Diaz signed the July 16, 2025 stipulation. See Doc. 37. For the reasons explained below, the 26 stipulation is granted as to the discharge of plaintiff but denied without prejudice as to the 27 disbursement of the interpleaded funds. 1 I. Discussion 2 The Court previously granted plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Rogelio 3 Botello Diaz, the named beneficiary in decedent Sergio Botello Diaz’s life insurance policy. 4 Doc. 36. The Court also granted plaintiff’s request to deposit the life insurance proceeds into the 5 Court’s registry as interpleader funds, Doc. 34. On April 15, 2025, plaintiff deposited the 6 interpleaded funds, in the amount of $1,162,526.33, with the Court. Doc. 35. As the interpleaded 7 funds are now deposited with the Court, plaintiff has previously obtained a default judgment 8 against Rogelio Botello Diaz, and all parties other than Rogelio Botello Diaz have stipulated to 9 plaintiff’s discharge from this case and to the payment of attorney’s fees to plaintiff’s counsel, the 10 Court grants the stipulated request to that extent. 11 However, the Court denies without prejudice the stipulated request for the disbursement of 12 the remaining interpleaded funds. Rogelio Botello Diaz did not sign the stipulation. See Doc. 37. 13 The prior order granting plaintiff’s motion for default judgment against Rogelio Botello Diaz was 14 rendered at the first stage of the interpleader action, where the Court “determin[es] that the 15 requirements of [28 U.S.C.] § 1335 are met and reliev[es] the plaintiff stakeholder from liability.” 16 Id. (quoting Western Conference of Teamsters Pension Plan v. Jennings, 2011 WL 2609858, at 17 *4–5 (N.D. Cal. June 6, 2011). The Court’s prior order did not act to deprive Rogelio Botello Diaz 18 of any interest he may have in the interpleaded funds. See Docs. 28, 36. 19 The Signing Parties attached to the stipulation an exhibit that appears to be a photograph 20 of a signed document written in Spanish, with a notary endorsement also in Spanish. Doc. 37, 21 Ex. 2. They state in their stipulation that this document is a disclaimer of interest to the 22 interpleaded funds which was signed by Rogelio Botello Diaz on January 2, 2024. Doc. 37 at ¶ 16. 23 However, the Signing Parties did not provide an English translation of the purported disclaimer or 24 other evidence regarding the authenticity of the document. “To satisfy the requirement of 25 authenticating or identifying an item of evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient 26 to support a finding that the item is what the proponent claims it is.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). The 27 1 Signing Parties did not do so and have not sufficiently established that the exhibit is what they 2 claim it to be. 3 Nor have the Signing Parties provided authority establishing that a stipulation that does not 4 include all interpleader defendants is an appropriate procedure for disbursing interpleaded funds, 5 where the other interpleader defendants have not obtained a judgment terminating any interest of 6 Rogelio Botello Diaz in the funds. 7 II. Conclusion and Order 8 Accordingly, 9 1. The stipulation, Doc. 37, is GRANTED as to the discharge of plaintiff; 10 2. Plaintiff is DISMISSED with prejudice from this action and discharged of any and all 11 further liability with respect to, affecting, or in any way arising out of Sergio Botello 12 Diaz’s life insurance policy; 13 3. The interpleader defendants shall be permanently enjoined from instituting or 14 prosecuting any other proceeding, arbitration, or lawsuit against plaintiff or any of its 15 former, current, and future parent companies, subsidiaries, affiliates, agents, 16 predecessors, successors, or assigns (including, but not limited to, Principal Life 17 Insurance Company, Principal Financial Services, Inc., and Principal Financial Group, 18 Inc.) with respect to Sergio Botello Diaz’s life insurance policy benefits and any and all 19 claims that were or could have been raised in this action against plaintiff; 20 4. Maynard Nexsen LLP shall be paid sixty-five thousand five-hundred ninety-four dollars 21 and twenty-three cents ($65,594.23) for attorney fees. The Clerk’s Office shall make 22 the check payable to “Principal Life Insurance Company c/o Maynard Nexsen”; 23 5. The stipulation, Doc. 37, is DENIED without prejudice as to the disbursement of the 24 remaining interpleaded funds. As to such interpleaded funds, the interpleader 25 defendants may proceed based on their stipulation if Rogelio Botello Diaz files, with 26 this Court, a properly documented disclaimer of interest to the interpleaded funds. See 27 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Mesh Suture, Inc., 31 F.4th 1300, 1311–1314 (10th Cir. 1 2022) (party’s disclaimer of interest filed in interpleader action constituted a judicial 2 admission sufficient to relieve party of interest in interpleaded funds). Alternatively, 3 the interpleader defendants may file a new stipulation and proposed order, signed by all 4 defendants including Rogelio Botello Diaz, concerning their requested disbursement of 5 the funds, or the interpleader defendants may file a noticed motion for disbursement of 6 the interpleaded funds showing that they are entitled to the funds; and 7 6. This case shall remain open pending a final determination of the interpleader 8 defendants’ entitlement to the remaining interpleaded funds. 9 10 11 IS SO ORDERED. _ ( 12 Dated: _ July 31, 2025 4h 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4-