The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
9
10 FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE Case No.: 25-CV-1392 JLS (MSB)
INSURANCE COMPANY,
11
ORDER GRANTING FARMERS
Plaintiff,
12 NEW WORLD LIFE INSURANCE
v. COMPANY’S UNOPPOSED
13
MOTION FOR DISCHARGE,
COLIN PEARCE; HOWARD HARDIN,
14 ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND
Interpleader Defendants. DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
15
16 (ECF No. 42)
COLIN PEARCE,
17
Counter-Claimant,
18
v.
19
FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE
20 INSURANCE COMPANY,
21 Counter-Defendant.
22
COLIN PEARCE,
23
Cross-Claimant,
24
v.
25
HOWARD HARDIN
26
27 Cross-Defendant.
28
1 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff Farmers New World Life Insurance
2 Company’s (“FNWL”) Unopposed Motion for Discharge, Attorneys’ Fees, and Dismissal
3 with Prejudice (“Mot.,” ECF No. 42). Also before the Court is Defendant Colin Pearce’s
4 (“Pearce”) Notice of Non-Opposition to FNWL’s Motion (ECF No. 48).
5 BACKGROUND
6 This case arises out of a dispute over a term life insurance policy issued by FNWL.
7 On or about October 1, 2007, Cesar Mendez (the “Decedent”) applied for a term life
8 insurance policy from FNWL. ECF No. 1 ¶ 6 (“Compl.”). This application designated
9 Pearce as the primary beneficiary and did not designate a continent beneficiary. Id. ¶ 7.
10 On or about October 14, 2007, FNWL “issued life insurance policy number 008074756
11 with a death benefit of $1,000,000 insuring the life of the Decedent (the “Policy”).” Id.
12 ¶ 8. On or about March 10, 2020, FNWL “received and processed an Absolute Assignment
13 Form designating Pearce as the owner of the Policy.” Id. ¶ 9. On or about December 19,
14 2023, FNWL “received and processed an Absolute Assignment Form designating the
15 Decedent as the owner of the Policy.” Id. ¶ 10. The Decedent died on July 15, 2024,
16 making the Policy death benefit due and payable to the beneficiary or beneficiaries. Id.
17 ¶¶ 10–11.
18 FNWL did not receive any request to change the beneficiary of the Policy prior to
19 the Decedent’s death but received two claims to the Policy death benefit—one from Pearce
20 and the other from Defendant Howard Hardin (“Hardin”). Id. ¶¶ 13–15. Hardin asserted
21 a claim to the Policy death benefit “based on an alleged January 26, 2024[,] Beneficiary
22 Change Form designating Hardin as the primary beneficiary of the Policy. Id. ¶ 15. FNWL
23 has no record of receiving the January 26, 2024, Beneficiary Change Form, and states that
24 it is “unable to determine the proper beneficiary of the Policy death benefit.” Id. ¶¶ 16–
25 17.
26 On June 2, 2025, FNWL filed its Complaint for Interpleader Relief against
27 Defendants Pearce and Hardin. See Compl. On June 17, 2025, Pearce filed his answer,
28 asserting a counterclaim against FNWL. ECF No. 8. On January 15, 2026, Pearce
1 voluntarily dismissed his counterclaim against FNWL. ECF No. 40. FNWL now brings
2 the present Motion seeking discharge, attorneys’ fees, and dismissal from the case with
3 prejudice. Mot. at 1.
4 DISCUSSION
5 Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 22, “a party [may] file a claim for
6 interpleader if there is a possibility of exposure to double or multiple liability.” Lee v. W.
7 Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012). Rule 22 allows an interpleading
8 party “to join [parties] with claims that may expose [the interpleading party] to double or
9 multiple liability.” Michelman v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir.
10 2012). “Interpleader actions have two stages where in the first stage, a court determines
11 whether interpleader is appropriate and in the second, the rights of the claimants are
12 adjudicated.” ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 2023 WL 9419140, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 25,
13 2023) (citing Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wells, No. C09-132 BZ, 2009 WL 1457676, at
14 *4 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2009)).
15 “A stakeholder may file an interpleader action to protect itself against potential, as
16 well as actual, claims.” Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010)
17 (internal quotation marks omitted). An interpleading stakeholder “need not sort out the
18 merits of conflicting claims as a prerequisite to interpleader” but “good faith requires a real
19 and reasonable fear of exposure to double liability or the vexation of conflicting claims.”
20 Michelman, 685 F.3d at 884 (citing Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Hamilton Steel Prods.,
21 Inc., 448 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 1971)). “A ‘real and reasonable fear’ does not mean that
22 the interpleading party must show that the purported adverse claimant might eventually
23 prevail.” Id. (quoting Aaron v. Mahl, 550 F.3d 659, 663 (7th Cir. 2008)). “Rather, the
24 stakeholder is required to demonstrate that the adverse claim has a ‘minimal threshold level
25 of substantiality.’” Id. “The adverse claim—whether actual or potential—must be at least
26 colorable.” Id. (citing Fonseca v. Regan, 734 F.2d 944, 948–50 (2d Cir. 1984)).
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 I. Discharge
2 “In ‘any civil action of interpleader’ a district court may discharge the interpleading
3 plaintiff from further liability, enjoin the parties from instituting further related actions,
4 and make all other appropriate orders.” Great Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown-Kingston, No.
5 18-CV-2783-MCE-KJN, 2019 WL 8137717, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2019) (citing 28
6 U.S.C. § 2361). “If an interpleader action is properly brought and the funds have been
7 deposited with the court, a court should readily discharge a stakeholder absent bad faith or
8 delay by the stakeholder.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Billini, No. CIV. S-06-2918 WBS KJM,
9 2007 WL 4209405, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) (citation omitted). Rule 22 interpleader
10 is a procedural device and requires that jurisdiction be proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or
11 1332. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858
12 F.2d 1376, 1382 (9th Cir. 1988).
13 Here, the Court finds that the requirements for Rule 22 interpleader are satisfied.
14 FNWL is a citizen of Washington, the Defendants are citizens of California, and the Policy
15 death benefit exceeds $75,000. Mot. at 4. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over the
16 action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Further, the Court finds that FNWL is a disinterested
17 stakeholder that has a good faith belief that it may be subject to multiple liability from the
18 Defendants, and the Motion is unopposed. See ECF No. 48. The funds have been deposited
19 with the Court, ECF No. 29, and there is no evidence of bad faith or delay by FNWL.
20 Therefore, FNWL’s Motion is GRANTED and FNWL is discharged from this action
21 WITH PREJUDICE and Defendants are ENJOINED from instituting any further
22 litigation against FNWL relating to the Policy. See ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., 2023 WL
23 9419140, at *3 (granting unopposed motion discharging plaintiff and enjoining defendants
24 from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding against plaintiff after plaintiff had properly
25 initiated the interpleader action and deposited the disputed funds with the court).
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 II. Attorney’s Fees
2 “The amount of fees to be awarded in an interpleader action is committed to the
3 sound discretion of the district court.” Trs. of Directors Guild of Am.-Producer Pension
4 Benefits Plan v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426 (9th Cir. 2000), opinion amended on denial of
5 reh’g, 255 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). “[A]ttorneys’ fee awards are
6 properly limited to those fees that are incurred in filing the action and pursuing the
7 [stakeholder’s] release from liability . . . .” Id. “Moreover, because the attorneys’ fees are
8 paid from the interpleaded fund itself, there is an important policy interest in seeing that
9 the fee award does not deplete the fund at the expense of the party who is ultimately deemed
10 entitled to it.” Id. at 427.
11 Here, FNWL requests attorneys’ fees and costs of $7,500, “to be awarded from the
12 Sum on deposit in the Court’s Registry.” Mot. at 5. While Plaintiff does not provide billing
13 records or declarations in support of its Motion, the Court finds this request reasonable as
14 the Motion is unopposed, and other courts in the Ninth Circuit have awarded similar fees.
15 See, e.g., Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Zatkulak, No. 24-CV-01708-CKD, 2024 WL 4769217,
16 at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2024) (awarding $6,000 as reasonable attorneys’ fees);
17 Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Shubin, No. 11-CV-01958-LJO, 2012 WL 2839704, at *12
18 (E.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) (awarding $7,164.25 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs);
19 Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Concepcion Flores Molina, No. 23-CV-01553-CDB, 2024 WL
20 713446, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2024) (finding reasonable a $4,500 attorneys’ fee request
21 based on a non-opposition from the parties with an interest in the disputed funds).
22 Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED.
23 / / /
24 / / /
25 / / /
26 / / /
27 / / /
28 / / /
1 CONCLUSION
2 In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Farmers New World Life Insurance
3 |}Company’s Unopposed Motion for Discharge, Attorneys’ Fees, and Dismissal with
4 || Preyudice (ECF No. 42). The Court ORDERS as follows:
5 1. Plaintiff is DISCHARGED of liability to Defendants with respect to the funds
6 deposited with the Court that are the subject of the Policy and this action.
7 2. Plaintiff DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE.
8 3. Defendants are permanently ENJOINED from instituting any suit against
9 Plaintiff with respect to the Policy funds.
10 4. The Clerk of Court SHALL pay Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount
11 of $7,500 from the sum on deposit in the Disputed Ownership Fund (DOF) of the
12 Court Registry Investment System (CRIS).
13 IT IS SO ORDERED.
14 Dated: March 20, 2026
19 (een
16 on. Janis L. Sammartino
United States District Judge
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28