1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
________________________________________________________________
)
HARTFORD LIFE AND ANNUITY )
INSURANCE COMPANY and )
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF AMERICA, )
) Case No. l:17-cv-00131-WSD
Plaintiffs, )
v. )
)
TERRI LEE BROWN, as natural guardian & )
next friend of G.L.L, a Minor, DOUGLAS )
JUMPER, SR. an Individual and Co-trustee )
of the Martha Y. Jumper Revocable Trust, )
ARTHUR DOUGLAS JUMPER, JR., an )
Individual and Co-trustee of the Martha Y. )
Jumper Revocable Trust, DOUGLAS )
JUMPER III, an Individual, LINDA )
MCCREARY, an Individual, MICHAEL )
MCCREARY, an Individual, DISTINCTIVE )
HOMES, INC., a Mississippi Corporation, )
J&J REALTY LLC, a Mississippi Limited )
Liability Company, DON CARRIER, an )
Individual, MICHAEL KENNEDY, an )
Individual, and C.O. CONNELLY & )
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Georgia Limited )
Liability Company. )
)
Defendants. )
REPLY MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT TERRI
LEE BROWN’S AMENDED RESPONSE TO HARTFORD’S MOTION FOR
DEPOSIT OF FUNDS AND MOTION FOR STAY OR, ALTERNATIVELY,
FOR EXTENSION TO RESPOND TO MOTION FOR DISMISSAL AND
PARTIAL WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 14
2
Plaintiffs Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company (“Hartford”) and
The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) (together,
“Plaintiffs”)
1
respectfully submit this Reply Memorandum of Law in response to
Defendant Terri Lee Brown’s, as natural guardian & next friend of G.L.L.
(“Brown”), Amended Response to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Deposit of Funds and
Motion for Stay or, alternatively for Extension to Respond to Motion for Dismissal
(the “Response”). (Doc. No. 55).
I. INTRODUCTION
Plaintiffs are entitled to an order for deposit of the Death Benefit with the
Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1335, Rules 22 and 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure and Local Rule 67. Plaintiffs are also entitled to discharge, an
injunction and their attorneys’ fees, as argued in its Memorandum of Law in
Support of this Motion (Doc. No. 40). However, due to procedural developments
subsequent to the filing of the instant motion, Plaintiffs temporarily withdraw that
portion of their motion seeking dismissal from the case, an injunction against the
Defendants and attorneys’ fees, with a reservation of rights to renew it at the
appropriate time.
1
Hartford issued the Policy that is the subject of this action, and Prudential subsequently became
the administrator of the Policy.
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 14
3
Since the filing of the instant motion, a Second Amended Complaint was
filed, in which three additional Defendants to the action were named. Those
Defendants have not yet been served and have not yet appeared in this action, and
therefore an order of dismissal of Plaintiffs, an injunction and an award of
attorneys’ fees is premature, as such an order would not be binding on the newly
named Defendants in the Second Amended Complaint.
Accordingly, Plaintiffs modify the request for relief set forth in their
Memorandum of Law in Support of this Motion (Doc. No. 40-1) and request an
Order pursuant to Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule
67:
(1) directing Plaintiffs to distribute to the Clerk of this Court a check
in the amount $3,000,000, (the “Death Benefit”) representing the
proceeds of a life insurance policy issued by Hartford and which is
payable as a result of the death of Gaylon LaBoa, plus any applicable
interest; and
(2) deeming withdrawn, without prejudice, Plaintiffs’ request for:
(a) a discharge of all liability and dismissal with prejudice all
claims against Plaintiffs relating to the Policy and/or the Death
Benefit;
(b) a dismissal of Plaintiffs from this action with prejudice,
(c) an injunction enjoining the Defendants from prosecuting an
action in any other forum for payment of the Death Benefit or
otherwise related in any way to the Policy; and
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 14
4
(d) an award of legal fees and costs from the amount of the
Death Benefit distributed in an amount to be determined by the
Court.
A revised proposed Order is filed herewith.
In her Response, Brown (1) joins in Plaintiffs’ request for an Order for
deposit of the funds with the Court, and (2) asks that Plaintiffs’ request for
dismissal from the action, injunction and attorneys’ fees be denied or stayed.
Brown also raises a number of issues that are unrelated to the subject matter of this
motion, including: hypothetical accusations and causes of action that she claims
she might have, but has not yet brought, against Plaintiffs; the appropriateness of
the appointment of a Guardian ad Litem for G.L.L.; and the Jumper Parties’
alleged claim for a return of premiums, among other subjects. Plaintiffs
respectfully request that the Court disregard Brown’s lengthy discussion of these
extraneous issues, as they are wholly irrelevant to the relief requested in the motion
at hand. Moreover, Defendant Brown’s contradictory assertions that Plaintiffs are
legally obliged to pay the proceeds to G.L.L. are rendered mute by Brown’s
explicit demand herein that the Court issue an order for the funds to be paid
immediately into the Court.
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 14
5
II. RELEVANT PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Plaintiffs originally filed this Interpleader action on January 12, 2017, against
defendant G.L.L, a minor and Does 1-50, Inclusive. (Doc. No. 1). Upon being
informed of the identities of the Defendants named as John Does, on February 14,
2017, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint naming the Jumper Parties as
Defendants. (Doc. No. 3).
On March 28, 2017, Defendant G.L.L. filed an Answer to Plaintiffs’ First
Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 25). On March 29, 2017, the Jumper Defendants
appeared by filing a Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction or, in the
Alternative, to Stay this Interpleader Action. (Doc. No. 26). After the appearance of
all the named Defendants in the Action at that time, on April 21, 2017, Plaintiffs filed
the instant motion for deposit, dismissal, injunction and attorneys fees. (Doc. No. 40).
Having been put on notice that two additional claimants were asserting claims to
the Death Benefit, Plaintiffs also made a motion to file a Second Amended Complaint
to add Don Carrier and Michael Kennedy as Defendants and to assert interpleader
jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1335. (Doc. No. 27). On May 15, 2017, pursuant to
this Court’s Order dated May 2, 2017 (Doc. No. 49), Plaintiffs filed their Second
Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 58). As Plaintiffs informed the Court in its Notice of
Filing of Second Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 57), a third additional Defendant,
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 14
6
C.O. Connelly & Associates, LLC, was added with consent of all Parties to the Action.
The Second Amended Complaint also properly alleges jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1335, as well as 28 U.S.C. §1332.
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Interpleader Deposit of the Death Benefit is Appropriate Pursuant to
28 U.S.C. §1335.
Defendant Brown joins in Plaintiffs’ request for an Order directing Plaintiffs to
deposit the Death Benefit with this Court. Section 1335 provides for original
jurisdiction over an interpleader in federal court where two or more claimants are of
diverse citizenship and the amount in controversy in excess of $500 is deposited with
the Court. 28 U.S.C. §1335. As alleged in the Second Amended Complaint, the
amount in controversy is $3,000,000, and the parties are citizens of Georgia, Alabama
and Mississippi. Defendant Brown does not dispute that interpleader is proper under
the circumstances or that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a “real fear of the vexation and
hazard of conflicting claims.” Nat’l Life Ins. Co. v. Alembik-Eisner, 582 F. Supp. 2d
1362, 1366 (N.D. Ga. 2008) (citations omitted).
In an interpleader action filed under 28 U.S.C. §1335(a)(2), deposit of the
stake with the Court is required, and is customarily tendered simultaneously with
the filing of the Complaint alleging §1335 jurisdiction. Thus, it is not premature to
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 14
7
request deposit of the Death Benefit pursuant to Local Rule 67 at this time, despite
the fact that the newly named defendants have not yet appeared.
Accordingly, interpleader deposit is appropriate and timely in order to fulfill
the requirements of 28 U.S.C. §1335, to allow the claimants to present their
respective claims to the proceeds on deposit, and for Plaintiffs to be protected from
the threat of multiple liability and further litigation.
B. Plaintiffs are Entitled to Dismissal, Injunction and Attorneys’ Fees at
the Appropriate Juncture in the Action.
In addition to an Order for deposit of the Death Benefit with the Court
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1335 and Local Rule 67, Plaintiffs are also entitled to
discharge from the action with prejudice, an injunction enjoining the interpleading
Defendants from bringing further action with regard to the policy or the Death
Benefit and an award of their attorneys’ fees.
As argued in their Memorandum in Support of this Motion, Plaintiffs have
fulfilled the Eleventh Circuit standard for interpleader. (Doc. No. 40-1). G.L.L.
and the Jumper Defendants have made competing claims to the Death Benefit,
exposing Plaintiffs to multiple liability for the same fund. Ohio Nat’l Life
Assurance Corp. v. Langkau, No. 08-15142, 2009 WL 3824789, at *3, 353 Fed.
App’x 244, 248 (11
th
Cir. Nov. 17, 2009). Plaintiffs are a neutral stakeholder of the
funds, and do not favor the interests of one adverse claimant over another.
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 14
8
Defendant Brown does not dispute the fact that the adverse claims of the
Defendants expose Plaintiffs to multiple liability for the same fund. Ohio Nat’l
Life Assurance Corp. v. Langkau, No. 08-15142, 2009 WL 3824789, at *3, 353
Fed. App’x 244, 248 (11
th
Cir. Nov. 17, 2009). As such, Plaintiffs are entitled to
seek the equitable remedy of interpleader in order to protect themselves from the
burden of defending the same controversy twice, as well as to protect them from
double liability. Reliastar Life Ins. Co. v. Knighten, No. 504CV221OC10GRJ,
2005 WL 1309411, at *3 (M.D. Fla. June 1, 2005).
While Defendant Brown asserts that interpleader deposit is appropriate, she
contradictorily argues that Plaintiffs are not entitled to dismissal because they should
have applied Georgia law to make a legal determination that G.L.L. is the proper payee
of the Death Benefit. However, Brown overlooks the fact that interpleader is a two
part process. Once it is determined that the interpleader action is appropriate and the
funds are deposited, it is only then that the Court, not the insurer, evaluates the
respective rights of the adverse claimants to the funds at stake. Ohio Nat’l Life
Assurance Corp., 2009 WL 3824789, at *3. Brown asserts that G.L.L. is entitled to
the Death Benefit in accordance with Georgia law. The Jumpers assert that they are
entitled to the Death Benefit under Mississippi law. Plaintiffs, private companies, do
not have the authority to apply a choice of law analysis, evaluate the legal positions of
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 8 of 14
9
adverse claimants and reach conclusions of law as to their respective positions: that is
the role of the Judiciary.
For example, in Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Harley, 365 F. Supp. 1210 (N.D. Ga.
1973), a case cited by Brown, Aetna commenced an interpleader action due to the
competing claims of the defendants, was permitted to deposit the funds with the court
and was granted a dismissal, just as Plaintiffs seek to do here. It was only subsequent
to deposit and dismissal that the Court applied Ga. Code Ann. §33-25-11, the statue
Brown relies on here in support of her argument that G.L.L. is entitled to the disputed
funds. At no point did the Court in Harley find that Aetna was in violation of that
statute by commencing the interpleader, nor did it opine that Aetna, instead of the
Court, had the obligation to make a legal determination in accordance with the
provisions of the statute. See also Speedway Motorsports, Inc. v. Pinnacle Bank, 315
Ga. 320 (Ga. 2012) and McCrary v. Middle Georgia Mgmt. Servs., Inc., 315 Ga. App.
247 (Ga. Ct. App. 2012) (In both cases, the court applied Ga. §33-25-11 to a situation
where creditors of the Insured sued the beneficiaries of a life insurance policy after the
proceeds had been paid out by the Insurer. The Insurer was not a party to either action
and the court did not address whether the insurer improperly paid the funds to the
wrong party, only whether or not the creditors were entitled to recoup the funds from
the payees).
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 9 of 14
10
Accordingly, at the appropriate time in this action, Plaintiffs are entitled to
dismissal and injunction prohibiting further prosecution of claims related to the Death
Benefit. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Thompson, No. 1:15-cv-0841-AT, 2015 WL
11978704, at *2 (N.D. Ga., Dec. 29, 2015). Finally, Plaintiffs reserve their right to
seek attorneys’ fees at the appropriate time in accordance with the authority of this
Court to award reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to stakeholders in interpleader
actions. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Boyd, 781 F.2d 1494, 1497-98 (11
th
Cir.
1986).
C. The Current Procedural Posture of Case Warrants Temporary
Withdrawal of Plaintiffs’ Request for Dismissal, Injunction and
Attorneys’ Fees.
Due to procedural developments subsequent to the filing of the instant
motion, Plaintiffs temporarily withdraw that portion of their motion seeking
dismissal from the case, an injunction against the Defendants and attorneys’ fees,
with a reservation of rights to renew it at the appropriate time. Since the filing of
the instant motion, a Second Amended Complaint was filed, in which three
additional Defendants, Don Carrier, Michael Kennedy and C.O. Connelly and
Associates, LLP, were named. Those Defendants have not yet been served and
have not yet appeared in this action, and therefore an order of dismissal of
Plaintiffs, an injunction against Defendants, and an award of attorneys’ fees is
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 10 of 14
11
premature, as such an order would not be binding on the newly named Defendants
in the Second Amended Complaint.
Therefore, following deposit of the Death Benefit with the Registry of the
Court, at the appropriate time after the appearance of all named Defendants and upon
renewal of this Motion, the Court should dismiss Plaintiffs from this action, with
prejudice, and issue an injunction enjoining the Adverse Claimants from prosecuting
an action in any other forum for payment of the Death Benefit or otherwise related in
any way to the Policy. At that time, Plaintiffs will also renew their application for an
award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs. Prudential Ins. Co. of Amer. v. Boyd,
781 F.2d 1494, 1497-98 (11
th
Cir. 1986).
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above and its Memorandum in Support of this motion,
and as pled in their Complaint in Interpleader, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the
present motion for Interpleader and Deposit be granted, and that the portion of the
motion for Dismissal, Injunction and Attorneys’ Fees and Costs be deemed withdrawn
without prejudice and subject to renewal after the appearance of the newly named
Defendants in the Second Amended Complaint.
Dated: May 24, 2017
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 11 of 14
12
Respectfully Submitted,
BUTLER SNOW LLP
/s/ James A. Beakes III
James A. Beakes III, GA Bar #043805
The Pinnacle at Symphony Place
150 3rd Avenue South
Suite 1600
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
615-651-6700
Jim.beakes@.butlersnow.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs Hartford Life and
Annuity Insurance Company and The
Prudential Insurance Company of America
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 12 of 14
13
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(D), I hereby certify that this Reply has been prepared
with Times New Roman 14 point font, as provided under Local Rule 5.1(C).
This 24
th
day of May, 2017.
By: /s/ James A. Beakes III
James A. Beakes III
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 13 of 14
14
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on May 24, 2017, I electronically filed this Reply
Memorandum of Law in response to Brown’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for
Interpleader Deposit and Dismissal with the Clerk of Court using the CM/ECF system
which will automatically send email notification of such filing to any attorneys of
record in this action.
By: /s/ James A. Beakes III
James A. Beakes III
36704482v1
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60 Filed 05/24/17 Page 14 of 14
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
________________________________________________________________
)
HARTFORD LIFE AND ANNUITY )
INSURANCE COMPANY and )
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE )
COMPANY OF AMERICA, )
) Case No. l:17-cv-00131-WSD
Plaintiffs, )
v. )
)
TERRI LEE BROWN, as natural guardian & )
next friend of G.L.L, a Minor, DOUGLAS )
JUMPER, SR. an Individual and Co-trustee )
of the Martha Y. Jumper Revocable Trust, )
ARTHUR DOUGLAS JUMPER, JR., an )
Individual and Co-trustee of the Martha Y. )
Jumper Revocable Trust, DOUGLAS )
JUMPER III, an Individual, LINDA )
MCCREARY, an Individual, MICHAEL )
MCCREARY, an Individual, DISTINCTIVE )
HOMES, INC., a Mississippi Corporation, )
J&J REALTY LLC, a Mississippi Limited )
Liability Company, DON CARRIER, an )
Individual, MICHAEL KENNEDY, an )
Individual, and C.O. CONNELLY & )
ASSOCIATES, LLC, a Georgia Limited )
Liability Company. )
)
Defendants. )
[REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER FOR INTERPLEADER DEPOSIT,
INJUNCTION AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 4
2
Upon Motion of Plaintiffs Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company and
The Prudential Insurance Company of America (together, “Plaintiffs”) and the
revisions requested in Plaintiffs’ Reply briefs in connection with same seeking,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1335, Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and
Local Rule 67, an Order:
(1) directing Plaintiffs to distribute to the Clerk of this Court a check in
the amount $3,000,000, (the “Death Benefit”) representing the proceeds
of individual life insurance policy number LT4956327 (the “Policy”)
issued by Hartford and which is payable as a result of the death of Gaylon
LaBoa, plus any applicable interest;
(2) deeming withdrawn, without prejudice, and subject to renewal at the
appropriate time, Plaintiffs’ request for:
(a) a discharge of all liability and dismissal with prejudice all
claims against Plaintiffs relating to the Policy and/or the Death
Benefit;
(b) a dismissal of Plaintiffs from this action with prejudice,
(c) an injunction enjoining the Defendants from prosecuting an
action in any other forum for payment of the Death Benefit or
otherwise related in any way to the Policy; and
(d) an award of legal fees and costs from the amount of the Death
Benefit distributed in an amount to be determined by the Court.
IT IS ORDERED as follows:
1. Within 21 days of the signing of this Order by the Court, Plaintiffs
shall distribute to the Clerk of this Court check(s) in the amount of $3,000,000.00,
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 4
3
plus applicable claim interest, if any, representing the Death Benefit payable under
the Policy;
2. That the Clerk of this Court shall deposit the Death Benefit distributed
by Plaintiffs into an interest-bearing account and maintain the same pending
further orders of the Court;
3. That the Court deems withdrawn, without prejudice, and subject to
renewal at the appropriate time, Plaintiffs’ request for:
(a) a discharge of all liability and dismissal with prejudice all
claims against Plaintiffs relating to the Policy and/or the Death
Benefit;
(b) a dismissal of Plaintiffs from this action with prejudice;
(c) an injunction enjoining the Defendants from prosecuting an
action in any other forum for payment of the Death Benefit or
otherwise related in any way to the Policy; and
(d) an award of legal fees and costs from the amount of the Death
Benefit distributed in an amount to be determined by the Court.
ORDERED this ____ day of _________________ 2017.
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 4
4
PREPARED FOR ENTRY:
/s/James A. Beakes III
James A. Beakes III, GA Bar No. 043805
BUTLER SNOW LLP
The Pinnacle at Symphony Place
150 3
rd
Avenue South, Suite 1600
Nashville, Tennessee 37201
Telephone: (615) 651-6700
Facsimile: (615) 651-6701
Jim.beakes@butlersnow.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Hartford Life and
Annuity Insurance Company and
The Prudential Insurance
Company of America
36704530v1
Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 4
