Fidelity and Guaranty Life Insurance Company v. Maria T Medina et al
Filing
21
AMENDED STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER by Judge Margaret M. Morrow (bp)
<![CDATA[
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
JAMES MCKIERNAN, ESQ., #55913
james@mckiernanlaw.com
MICHAEL R. PICK JR., ESQ., #234700
mpick@mckiernanlaw.com
JAMES MCKIERNAN LAWYERS
21 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 300
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
(805) 541-5411 -
(805) 544-8329 - FAX
Attorney for Defendant,
MARIA T. MEDINA
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
12
FIDELITY AND GUARANTY
CASE NO: CV11-10793MMM(FFMx)
LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, a
Maryland Corporation,
13
Plaintiff,
14
vs.
15
AMENDED STIPULATED
JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER
MARIA T. MEDINA; MARISELA
MEDINA, as Administrator of the
ESTATE OF ARMANDO
MEDINA SR., deceased; and
DOES 1-10 inclusive,
16
17
18
Defendants.
19
20
Upon reading the Stipulation and Order for Entry of Judgment in
21
Interpleader submitted by and between plaintiff Fidelity and Guaranty Life
22
Insurance Company (“Fidelity”) and defendants Maria T. Medina and Marisela
23
Medina, individually and as the pending administrator of the Estate of
24
Armando Medina, Sr. (hereinafter both defendants referred to collectively as
25
“Defendants”) (hereinafter Defendants and Fidelity referred to collectively as
26
“the Parties”), and it appearing that Fidelity has properly brought this action in
27
interpleader, that this Court has jurisdiction of the parties and of the subject
28
herein, and that good cause appearing therefore,
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER
Error! Unknown document property name.
-1-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER
Error! Unknown document property name.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED:
1.
That Fidelity properly filed its complaint in interpleader on
December 29, 2011 and this is a proper cause for interpleader by and between
the Parties, and that Defendants hereby consent to the jurisdiction of this Court
in this matter;
2.
That on or about November 22, 2004, Fidelity issued the term life
insurance policy, number L0255150 (“the Policy”), insuring the life of
Armando Medina, Sr. (“decedent”) in the amount of $358,150.00;
3.
That Defendant Maria T. Medina (hereinafter “Maria”) was
designated the 100% primary beneficiary on the decedent’s application, with
no contingent beneficiary listed;
4.
That on or about July 12, 2009, decedent and Maria were
divorced;
5.
That decedent died on August 5, 2011;
6.
That at the time of decedent’s death, decedent was married to
Defendant Marisela Medina (hereinafter “Marisela”);
7.
That at the time of decedent’s death, Maria was beneficiary of the
Policy;
8.
That after decedent’s death, by letter dated September 7, 2011,
attorney Shannon M. Bio of Frederick Law Firm (“FLF”) notified Fidelity that
FLF had been retained by Marisela to handle the probate of decedent’s estate;
9.
That in her September 7, 2011 letter to Fidelity, Ms. Bio
contended that Maria agreed to waive any rights or interest in any life
insurance policies in effect on the date of dissolution of her marriage to
decedent;
10.
That Fidelity subsequently received a letter dated September 28,
2011, from attorney James McKiernan, counsel for Maria, requesting that
Fidelity not distribute the Policy proceeds to decedent’s pending probate estate;
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER
Error! Unknown document property name.
-3-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11.
That in his September 28, 2011 letter, Mr. McKiernan asserted
that, under California law, the divorce decree waiver by Maria did not function
as an automatic revocation, changing of beneficiaries, and that the matter was
further complicated by decedent’s failure to disclose the existence of the Policy
during divorce proceedings with Maria;
12.
That Fidelity subsequently received a letter dated October 5, 2011
from attorney James McKiernan again requesting that Fidelity not distribute
the Policy proceeds to decedent’s probate estate;
13.
That in his October 5, 2011 letter, Mr. McKiernan asserted that a
peremptory distribution of the life insurance proceeds to the Armando Medina
probate estate could amount to actionable bad faith, exposing Fidelity to
general, special and punitive damages;
14.
That Defendants hold adverse claims to the proceeds of the
Policy;
15.
That in view of the potentially adverse claims, Fidelity filed the
instant interpleader action on December 29, 2011;
16.
That after filing the interpleader complaint, Fidelity deposited
with the Clerk of the Court, the sum of $362,329.61, representing the death
benefit of $358,150, plus interest of $4,179.61, which total sum Fidelity admits
to be due and owing under the Policy by reason of the decedent’s death;
17.
That after Fidelity filed the interpleader complaint, Andrew
Medina, decedent’s son, objected to the appointment of Marisela as the
administrator of decedent’s probate estate; and instead sought to have himself
appointed the administrator of decedent’s probate estate;
18.
That thereafter Defendants and Andrew Medina entered into
negotiations as to the distribution of the Policy proceeds, and that having
reached an agreement between themselves as to the distribution of the Policy
proceeds, fully and forever release, discharge, and acquit Fidelity its
predecessors, successors, affiliates, parent corporation, officers and agents
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER
Error! Unknown document property name.
-4-
1
2
3
4
from any liability of any kind or nature whatsoever under the Policy or by
reason of the death of the decedent as to any and all claims, charges, demands,
or otherwise that exist now or may arise at any time in the future;
19.
That Fidelity is entitled to costs in the amount of $898.89 payable
5
from the Policy proceeds and said payment shall be made payable to “Fidelity
6
and Guaranty Life Insurance Company,” C/O Shivani Nanda, Esq., WILSON,
7
ELSER, MOSKOWITZ, EDELMAN & DICKER LLP, 525 Market Street,
8
17th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105;
9
20.
That the balance of said funds shall be made payable to Maria;
10
which funds shall be forwarded to: “Maria T. Medina” C/O JAMES
11
MCKIERNAN LAWYERS, 21 Santa Rosa Street, Suite 300, San Luis Obispo,
12
CA 93405;
13
21.
That Defendants and/or their heirs, successors, predecessors,
14
assigns, are permanently enjoined from instituting or prosecuting any
15
proceeding in any State, or United States Court against Fidelity, its
16
predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates, parent corporation, officers,
17
employees and/or agents, with respect to term life insurance policy, number
18
L0255150; and
19
22.
That Fidelity, its predecessors, successors, subsidiaries, affiliates,
20
parent corporation, officers, employees and/or agents, are discharged from all
21
liability to Defendants in this action or under term life insurance policy,
22
number L0255150.
23
24
25
26
Dated: May 10, 2012
By:
HONORABLE MARGARET M. MORROW
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
27
28
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
[PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT IN INTERPLEADER
Error! Unknown document property name.
-5-
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
