The opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE )
COMPANY, )
)
Plaintiff, )
) No. 21 C 6558
v. )
) Judge Sara L. Ellis
LIBRA WRIGHT-DELAINE, )
MICHAEL HARDING BROWN, )
ARRIEN RICHARDSON, )
MARY MEADOWS, and )
NNEKA MALONE, )
)
Defendants. )
_______________________________________)
)
LIBRA WRIGHT-DELAINE, )
)
Cross-Claimant, )
)
v. )
)
MICHAEL HARDING BROWN, )
)
Cross-Defendant. )
ORDER
The Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant Michael Harding Brown’s motion
to dismiss [28]. The Court dismisses Count II of Primerica’s interpleader complaint [1] without
prejudice. See Statement.
STATEMENT
Plaintiff Primerica Life Insurance Company (“Primerica”) brought an interpleader
complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 to resolve the competing claims to certain life insurance
proceeds. Defendant Libra Wright-Delaine, the former beneficiary, filed a crossclaim against
Defendant Michael Harding Brown, the current majority beneficiary, alleging fraud and
requesting a constructive trust on the portion of the funds already dispersed. Harding Brown has
filed a motion to dismiss both Primerica’s constructive trust claim and Wright-Delaine’s entire
crossclaim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Because Primerica does not contest
dismissal of its constructive trust claim, the Court dismisses Count II of the interpleader
complaint without prejudice. Because Wright-Delaine has pleaded sufficient facts to put
Harding Brown on notice of the fraud allegations, the Court denies the motion to dismiss the
crossclaim.
A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) challenges the sufficiency of the complaint, not
its merits. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Gibson v. City of Chicago, 910 F.2d 1510, 1520 (7th Cir.
1990). In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts in
the plaintiff’s complaint and draws all reasonable inferences from those facts in the plaintiff’s
favor. Kubiak v. City of Chicago, 810 F.3d 476, 480–81 (7th Cir. 2016). To survive a Rule
12(b)(6) motion, the complaint must assert a facially plausible claim and provide fair notice to
the defendant of the claim’s basis. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009); Bell Atl. Corp. v.
Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Adams v. City of Indianapolis, 742 F.3d 720, 728–29 (7th
Cir. 2014). A claim is facially plausible “when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the
court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
Fraud claims must also satisfy Rule 9(b)’s particularity requirement, which requires a
party to “state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b);
Cornielsen v. Infinium Cap. Mgmt., LLC, 916 F.3d 589, 598 (7th Cir. 2019); AnchorBank, FSB v.
Hofer, 649 F.3d 610, 614–15 (7th Cir. 2011). “This ordinarily requires describing the ‘who,
what, when, where, and how’ of the fraud, although the exact level of particularity that is
required will necessarily differ based on the facts of the case.” AnchorBank, 649 F.3d at 615
(citation omitted).
Harding Brown seeks dismissal of Wright-Delaine’s entire crossclaim on the basis that it
does not meet the heightened fraud pleading standard of Rule 9(b). However, Wright-Delaine
has sufficiently alleged fraud. She pleads that Harding Brown “intentionally, maliciously, and
fraudulently created the Disputed Change of Beneficiary Form . . . for his own personal profit.”
Doc. 15 ¶ 34. She further pleads that she could not find her son’s insurance paperwork in the
house that he shared with Harding Brown, and that Harding Brown, who is an agent of
Primerica, would not answer any questions about the insurance policy except to say that she was
no longer a beneficiary. Id. ¶¶ 31–34. Wright-Delaine’s crossclaim “paint[s] a sufficiently
detailed picture of the alleged” uncomplicated scheme. AnchorBank, 649 F.3d at 616. Harding
Brown also seeks dismissal of Wright-Delaine’s constructive trust claim because it relies on the
fraud claim. Because the Court finds Wright-Delaine’s fraud count to be sufficiently pleaded, it
will not dismiss her constructive trust claim on this basis.
Date: June 6, 2022 /s/__Sara L. Ellis____________