Allstate Life Insurance v Dall, et al, No. 2:2007cv02264 - Document 44 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: ORDER GRANTING 32 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr on 10/27/2009; counsel for moving dfts shall file proposed order no later than 11/6/2009. (Suttles, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Allstate Life Insurance v Dall, et al Doc. 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ALLSTATE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) BEATRICE DALL; JARED STEPHEN DALL, ) ETHAN RYAN DALL; JEANNE CORENE ) VILORIA; LARRY LEE DALL; SHANNON ) CHRISTIN OLIVEIRA; SHELLI ALLISON ) DALL; STEPHEN RAY DALL; BARBARA ) DALL, ) ) Defendants. ) ) 2:07-cv-2264-GEB-KJM ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS BEATRICE DALL, JARED STEPHEN DALL AND ETHAN RYAN DALL’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT* Beatrice Dall, Jared Dall and Ethan Dall (collectively, the 20 “Moving Defendants”) seek summary judgment in this interpleader 21 action, arguing that Jared Dall and Ethan Dall are entitled as a 22 matter of law to the proceeds at issue under decedent William Dall’s 23 life insurance policy.1 (Docket No. 32.) Defendants Jeanne Viloria, 24 * 25 26 27 28 argument. This matter is deemed suitable for decision without oral E.D. Cal. R. 78-230(h). 1 At the time this motion was filed, Plaintiffs Jared and Ethan Dall could not file the motion because they were minors and were without a representative as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 17(c). This issue was raised sua sponte and cured by an order issued on October (continued...) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Larry Dall, Shannon Oliveira, Shelli Dall, Stephen Dall and Barbara 2 Dall (collectively, the “Non-Moving Defendants”) oppose the motion. 3 For the reasons stated below, the Moving Defendants’ motion for 4 summary judgment is GRANTED. 5 I. Summary Judgment Standard 6 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c) provides that summary 7 “judgment . . . shall be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and 8 disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no 9 genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled 10 to judgment as a matter of law.” 11 relevant to an element of a claim or defense and whose existence might 12 affect the outcome of the suit. 13 determined by the substantive law governing the claim or defense. 14 Disputes over irrelevant or unnecessary facts will not preclude a 15 grant of summary judgment.” 16 Contractors Ass’n, 908 F.2d 626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987). 17 “A material fact is one that is The materiality of a fact is thus T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., v. Pacific Elec. The moving party bears the initial burden of demonstrating the 18 absence of a genuine issue of material fact for trial. 19 v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). 20 its burden, “the non-moving party must set forth, by affidavit or as 21 otherwise provided in Rule 56, specific facts showing that there is a 22 genuine issue for trial.” 23 (quotations omitted). Celotex Corp. If the moving party satisfies T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630 If the non-moving party fails to show that 24 25 26 27 28 1 (...continued) 26, 2009, appointing Beatrice Dall as the guardian ad litem for Jared and Ethan Dall. Since this appointment was overlooked by all counsel involved in the motion, it is made nunc pro tunc as of the date the motion was filed. Accordingly, the motion will be treated as Beatrice Dall moving on behalf of Jared and Ethan Dall as their guardian ad litem. 2 1 there is a genuine issue for trial, “the moving party is entitled to 2 judgment as a matter of law.” 3 II. 4 Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. at 323. Factual Background2 The Moving Defendants’ statement of undisputed facts and the Non- 5 Moving Defendants’ separate statement of undisputed facts reveal that 6 the material facts in this case are undisputed. 7 William Dall (“William”) and Beatrice Dall (“Beatrice”) were 8 married on December 2, 1995. 9 Undisputed Facts (“SSUF”) ¶ 1.) (Non-Moving Defs.’ Separate Statement of During their marriage, William and 10 Beatrice had two children, Jared Dall (“Jared”) and Ethan Dall 11 (“Ethan”). 12 (Id.) On March 5, 1998, William purchased a universal life insurance 13 policy (the “Life Insurance Policy”) from Allstate Life Insurance 14 Company (“Allstate”). 15 value, as amended, was $400,000. 16 as the primary beneficiary of the Life Insurance Policy and Jared and 17 Ethan as equal contingent beneficiaries. 18 19 (Id. ¶ 2.) The Life Insurance Policy’s face (Id. ¶ 3.) William named Beatrice (Id. ¶ 4.) On September 21, 2005, Beatrice filed a petition for dissolution of marriage in Kings County Superior Court. (Id. ¶ 5.) 20 On or about April 4, 2007, Allstate received a Request for Change 21 of Beneficiary form (the “Change of Beneficiary Form”) from William in 22 which William requested to change the beneficiary designation on the 23 Life Insurance Policy. 24 foundation objection against the admission of the Change of (Id. ¶ 6.) The Non-Moving Defendants assert a 25 26 27 28 2 The Non-Moving Defendants object on foundation grounds to the admission of exhibits accompanying the Moving Defendants’ declaration in support of their motion. Except as where discussed below, the Defendants’ evidentiary objections pertain to immaterial facts and need not be addressed. 3 1 Beneficiary Form. 2 Non-Moving Defendants rely on the content of the Change of Beneficiary 3 Form in their separate statement of undisputed facts. 4 This objection, however, is overruled since the (Id.) William and Beatrice signed a Divorce Order Marital Settlement 5 Agreement (“MSA”) on February 21, 2007, in which William and Beatrice 6 each waived their respective rights as beneficiaries to the proceeds 7 of insurance policies held by the other. 8 County Superior Court issued a final judgment in William and 9 Beatrice’s marital dissolution proceeding on April 20, 2007. (Id. ¶ 18.) The Kings (Id. ¶ 10 17.) 11 have not shown a foundation justifying admission of the Superior 12 Court’s final order, judicial notice is taken of the order since the 13 Non-Moving Defendants do not dispute that William and Beatrice’s 14 divorce proceeding in Kings County Superior Court was Case No. 15 05FL0643, nor that the referenced order attached as an exhibit to the 16 declaration filed in support of the motion, was issued by the Kings 17 County Superior Court in Case No. 05FL0643. 18 Rancheria Citizens Council v. Borneo, Inc., 971 F.2d 244, 248 (9th 19 Cir. 1992)(judicial notice of California Superior Court case 20 appropriate); Fed. R. Evid. 201(b),(c). 21 William’s sons were the only beneficiaries to the Life Insurance 22 Policy after William and Beatrice executed the MSA; they only dispute 23 the validity and legal effect of the Change of Beneficiary Form. 24 Non-Moving Defs.’ Opp’n. 1:25-2:9.) 25 Although the Non-Moving Defendants argue the Moving Defendants William died on July 5, 2007. See U.S. ex. Rel The parties agree that (See (Non-Moving Defs.’ SSUF ¶ 19.) 26 Following William’s death, Beatrice, Jared, Ethan, Shannon Oliveira, 27 Larry Dall, Shelli Dall, Jeanne Viloria, Barbara Dall and Stephen Dall 28 all made claims to Allstate for the proceeds under the Life Insurance 4 1 Policy. 2 interpleader action against Beatrice, Jared, Ethan, Jeanne Viloria, 3 Larry Dall, Shannon Oliveira, Shelli Dall, Stephen Dall and Barbara 4 Dall, seeking to have the Court determine to whom the proceeds of the 5 Life Insurance Policy should be paid. 6 2009, an order issued discharging Allstate from this action and 7 authorizing Allstate to give the Clerk of the Court the disputed life 8 insurance proceeds, less attorneys’ fees and costs. 9 III. Discussion 10 (Compl. ¶ 18.) On October 23, 2007, Allstate brought an (Docket No. 2.) On June 30, (Docket No. 28). The Non-Moving Defendants argue the Moving Defendants’ motion is 11 premature because they have not conducted discovery, and therefore, 12 the motion should be denied or continued. 13 2:16-19.) 14 good cause justifies amending the January 24, 2008 status (pretrial 15 scheduling) order which prescribes June 17, 2009 as the discovery 16 completion date. 17 604, 608 (9th Cir. 1992)(stating that a pretrial scheduling order may 18 only be modified “upon a showing of ‘good cause’”). 19 Moving Defendants have not shown that good cause justifies amending 20 the discovery completion date, their de facto request to amend the 21 pretrial scheduling order is denied. 22 co., 769 F.2d 541, 548 (9th Cir. 1985)(upholding district court’s 23 decision to deny amendment of scheduling order in summary judgment 24 proceeding because of failure to show good cause). 25 (Non-Moving Defs.’ Opp’n. The Non-Moving Defendants, however, have not shown that See Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d Since the Non- See Eagle v. Am. Tel. & Tel. The Moving Defendants argue summary judgment should be granted in 26 their favor because California Family Code Section 2040 (“Section 27 2040") enjoined William from changing the beneficiaries to the Life 28 Insurance Policy during the pendency of his divorce proceeding. 5 The 1 Non-Moving Defendants counter Section 2040 is inapplicable because it 2 was not violated. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 (Non-Moving Defs.’ Opp’n. 3:21-24.) Section 2040 states the summons to a martial dissolution proceeding: shall contain a temporary restraining order . . . [r]estraining both parties from cashing, borrowing against, canceling, transferring, disposing of, or changing the beneficiaries of any insurance or other coverage, including life, health, automobile, and disability, held for the benefit of the parties and their child or children for whom support may be ordered. CAL. FAM. CODE § 2040(a)(3)(West 2009). California Family Code Section 10 233(a) prescribes when the temporary restraining order is effective as 11 follows: “Upon filing the petition and issuance of the summons and 12 upon personal service of the petition and summons on the respondent or 13 upon waiver and acceptance of service by the respondent, the temporary 14 restraining order under this part shall be in effect against the 15 parties until the final judgment is entered or the petition is 16 dismissed, or until further order of the court.” 17 233(a); Estate of Mitchell, 76 Cal. App. 4th 1378, 1387 (1999) (“This 18 automatic restraining order remains in effect until final judgment is 19 entered or the petition is dismissed, or until further order of the 20 court.”)(quotations and citations omitted). 21 CAL . FAM . CODE § Neither side has provided evidence on whether a summons for the 22 dissolution proceeding was personally served on William, or whether 23 William waived and accepted service. 24 show that Section 2040's temporary restraining order became effective 25 no later than February 21, 2007, when William and Beatrice signed the 26 MSA, and remained in effect until the Kings County Superior Court 27 issued its final order in William and Beatrice’s divorce proceeding on 28 April 20, 2007. However, the undisputed facts Therefore, regardless of the validity of the Change 6 1 of Beneficiary Form Allstate received on or around April 4, 2007, 2 William was then enjoined by Section 2040 from changing the 3 beneficiaries to his Life Insurance Policy until after April 20, 2007. 4 Accordingly, the Change of Beneficiary Form Allstate received on or 5 around April 4, 2007 had no legal effect on the beneficiaries to the 6 Life Insurance Policy. 7 Section 2040 was not violated by the Change of Beneficiary Form is 8 unpersuasive. The Non-Moving Defendants’ argument that 9 Since Beatrice disclaimed her interest in the Life Insurance 10 Policy in the MSA, Jared and Ethan, as equal contingent beneficiaries, 11 are the only beneficiaries under the Life Insurance Policy. 12 IV. 13 Conclusion For the reasons stated above, the Moving Defendants’ motion for 14 summary judgment is granted. 15 however, shall file, no later than November 6, 2009, a proposed order 16 outlining a plan for the disbursement of the interpleader funds that 17 protects the interests of Jared and Ethan, including any attorneys’ 18 fees the minors’ counsel seeks to recover from the interpleader funds. 19 See Cal. Prob. Code §§ 3610, 3611 (West 2009). 20 the proposed order, the Clerk of the Court will be directed to 21 disburse the funds. 22 Dated: Counsel for the Moving Defendants, Upon court approval of October 27, 2009 23 24 25 GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR. United States District Judge 26 27 28 7
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
