Delaware Life Insurance Company v. Covenant Living Communities and Services
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
Plaintiff Delaware Life Insurance Company requested entry of default against Defendant Covenant Trust Company for failure to appear in an interpleader action. The court denied the request as moot because Covenant Trust filed its answer after the request was made but before the order was issued.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Request for entry of default against Covenant Trust Company denied as moot“Thus, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s request for entry of default as to Covenant Trust as moot.” | agree with court The court correctly identified that the filing of an answer by the defendant prior to the entry of default rendered the request moot. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55, default is a sanction for failure to plead or otherwise defend; once a party has answered, the basis for default no longer exists. The court's reliance on the principle that a court should not decide issues that would have no effect on the case is consistent with general judicial practice and the cited authority. |
The order itself: sound — The order is procedurally sound. It accurately recites the procedural history, notes the untimeliness of other defendants' answers (while correctly noting the waiver of that objection), and identifies the specific event (filing of the answer) that rendered the motion moot. The citation to Tur v. YouTube, Inc. is appropriate for the mootness determination. There are no significant gaps or errors in the reasoning provided for this specific ruling.
Opinion
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DELAWARE LIFE INSURANCE Case No.: 21cv01313-LL-MDD COMPANY, 12 ORDER DENYING REQUEST FOR Plaintiff, 13 ENTRY OF DEFAULT v. 14 [ECF No. 22] COVENANT LIVING COMMUNITIES 15 AND SERVICES, dba MOUNT 16 MIGUEL, a business organization, form unknown, et al., 17 Defendants. 18 19 Plaintiff Delaware Life Insurance Company, a Delaware corporation formerly 20 known as Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada (U.S.) (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint 21 in interpleader concerning competing claims to certain death benefits against Defendants 22 Covenant Living Communities and Services dba MOUNT MIGUEL, a business 23 organization, form unknown (“Mount Miguel”); Covenant Trust Company (“Covenant 24 Trust”), as Trustee/Administrator of the Barbara J. Witt Living Trust Agreement dated 25 November 13, 1996 (the “Trust”)1; the Estate of Doris Irene Harrison (the “Harrison 26 27 1 Plaintiff originally named Covenant Trust (“Covenant Trust”), as Trustee/ Administrator of the Barbara J. Witt Living Trust Agreement dated November 13, 1996 28 1 Estate”); Candice Hallman, individually, and as Attorney-in-Fact for Doris I. Harrison 2 (“Hallman”); and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive (collectively, Defendants”). ECF No. 1. 3 On July 21, 2021, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint in Interpleader due to the 4 competing claims for death benefits. ECF No. 1; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 22. On July 22, 5 2021, Plaintiff filed its notice of deposit of the disputed interpleader funds via check. ECF 6 No. 3; see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 67 (allowing parties to deposit money with the Court by 7 delivering a copy of the order permitting the deposit in a case where the plaintiff seeks, 8 inter alia, the disposition of a sum of money). 9 On August 6, 2021, Plaintiff moved for an order to deposit the interpleader funds 10 with the Court. ECF No. 6-1; see also S.D. Cal. Civ. R. 67.1(a) (requiring a court order 11 before money may be sent to or deposited with the Court). On September 2, 2021, the 12 Court granted the motion. ECF No. 12. 13 On October 12, 2021, November 26, 2021, and November 29, 2021, Mount Miguel, 14 Hallman, and the Harrison Estate respectively filed theirs answer to the complaint. ECF 15 Nos. 17-20. All three answers appear to have been untimely. Compare ECF Nos. 7, 8, 10, 16 13 (showing the parties’ waivers of service) with Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(d)(2)(3) (indicating that 17 based on the dates the waivers were signed, all three parties responsive pleadings were due 18 by Monday, October 10, 2021). However, Plaintiff did not seek entry of default; thus, any 19 objection to their untimeliness has been waived. 20 As of March 9, 2022, all four defendants had been served, ECF Nos. 7, 8, 10, 13, 21 and all defendants other than Covenant Trust had appeared, see ECF Nos. 18-20. Thus, 22 Plaintiff requested entry of default as to Covenant Trust. ECF No. 22. However, on March 23 15, 2022, Covenant Trust filed its answer to the complaint. ECF No. 23. Thus, the Court 24 DENIES Plaintiff’s request for entry of default as to Covenant Trust as moot. See, e.g., 25 Tur v. YouTube, Inc., 562 F.3d 1212, 1214 (9th Cir. 2009) (concluding “that an issue is 26 27 designation, and the correct party name is Covenant Trust Company (“Covenant Trust”), as Trustee of the Barbara J. Witt Living Trust Agreement dated November 13, 1996 (the 28 1 || moot when deciding it would have no effect within the confines of the case itself’). 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 ) 3|| DATED: March 22, 2022 4 HON. LINDA LOPEZ 5 United States District Judge 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28