Farmers New World Life Insurance Company v. Pearce et al

1
25-CV-1392 JLS (MSB)
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
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
COLIN PEARCE; HOWARD HARDIN,
Interpleader Defendants.
COLIN PEARCE,
Counter-Claimant,
v.
FARMERS NEW WORLD LIFE
INSURANCE COMPANY,
Counter-Defendant.
COLIN PEARCE,
Cross-Claimant,
v.
HOWARD HARDIN
Cross-Defendant.
Case No.: 25-CV-1392 JLS (MSB)
ORDER GRANTING FARMERS
NEW WORLD LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY’S UNOPPOSED
MOTION FOR DISCHARGE,
ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND
DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE
(ECF No. 42)
Case 3:25-cv-01392-JLS-MSB Document 50 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 1 of 6

2
25-CV-1392 JLS (MSB)
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
Presently 	before 	the 	Court 	is 	Plaintiff 	Farmers 	New 	World 	Life 	Insurance
Company’s (“FNWL”) Unopposed Motion for Discharge, Attorneys’ Fees, and Dismissal
with Prejudice (“Mot.,” ECF No. 42). Also before the Court is Defendant Colin Pearce’s
(“Pearce”) Notice of Non-Opposition to FNWL’s Motion (ECF No. 48).
BACKGROUND
This case arises out of a dispute over a term life insurance policy issued by FNWL.
On or about October 1, 2007, Cesar Mendez (the “Decedent”) applied for a term life
insurance policy from FNWL. 	ECF No. 1 ¶ 6 (“Compl.”). 	This application designated
Pearce as the primary beneficiary and did not designate a continent beneficiary. 	Id. ¶ 7.
On or about October 14, 2007, FNWL “issued life insurance policy number 008074756
with a death benefit of $1,000,000 insuring the life of the Decedent (the “Policy”).” 	Id.
¶ 8. On or about March 10, 2020, FNWL “received and processed an Absolute Assignment
Form designating Pearce as the owner of the Policy.” Id. ¶ 9. On or about December 19,
2023, FNWL “received and processed an Absolute Assignment Form designating the
Decedent as the owner of the Policy.” 	Id. ¶ 10. 	The Decedent died on July 15, 2024,
making the Policy death benefit due and payable to the beneficiary or beneficiaries. 	Id.
¶¶ 10–11.
FNWL did not receive any request to change the beneficiary of the Policy prior to
the Decedent’s death but received two claims to the Policy death benefit—one from Pearce
and the other from Defendant Howard Hardin (“Hardin”). 	Id. ¶¶ 13–15. Hardin asserted
a claim to the Policy death benefit “based on an alleged January 26, 2024[,] Beneficiary
Change Form designating Hardin as the primary beneficiary of the Policy. Id. ¶ 15. FNWL
has no record of receiving the January 26, 2024, Beneficiary Change Form, and states that
it is “unable to determine the proper beneficiary of the Policy death benefit.” 	Id. ¶¶ 16–
17.
On June 2, 2025, FNWL filed its Complaint for Interpleader Relief against
Defendants Pearce and Hardin. 	See Compl. 	On June 17, 2025, Pearce filed his answer,
asserting a counterclaim against FNWL. 	ECF No. 8. 	On January 15, 2026, Pearce
Case 3:25-cv-01392-JLS-MSB Document 50 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 2 of 6

3
25-CV-1392 JLS (MSB)
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
voluntarily dismissed his counterclaim against FNWL. ECF No. 40. FNWL now brings
the present Motion seeking discharge, attorneys’ fees, and dismissal from the case with
prejudice. Mot. at 1.
DISCUSSION
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 22, “a party [may] file a claim for
interpleader if there is a possibility of exposure to double or multiple liability.” Lee v. W.
Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004, 1009 (9th Cir. 2012). Rule 22 allows an interpleading
party “to join [parties] with claims that may expose [the interpleading party] to double or
multiple liability.” 	Michelman v. Lincoln Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887, 893 (9th Cir.
2012). “Interpleader actions have two stages where in the first stage, a court determines
whether interpleader is appropriate and in the second, the rights of the claimants are
adjudicated.” ReliaStar Life Ins. Co. v. Hill, 2023 WL 9419140, at *2 (C.D. Cal. May 25,
2023) (citing Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Wells, No. C09-132 BZ, 2009 WL 1457676, at
*4 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2009)).
“A stakeholder may file an interpleader action to protect itself against potential, as
well as actual, claims.” 	Mack v. Kuckenmeister, 619 F.3d 1010, 1023 (9th Cir. 2010)
(internal quotation marks omitted). 	An interpleading stakeholder “need not sort out the
merits of conflicting claims as a prerequisite to interpleader” but “good faith requires a real
and reasonable fear of exposure to double liability or the vexation of conflicting claims.”
Michelman, 685 F.3d at 884 (citing Union Cent. Life Ins. Co. v. Hamilton Steel Prods.,
Inc., 448 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 1971)). “A ‘real and reasonable fear’ does not mean that
the interpleading party must show that the purported adverse claimant might eventually
prevail.” 	Id. (quoting Aaron v. Mahl, 550 F.3d 659, 663 (7th Cir. 2008)). 	“Rather, the
stakeholder is required to demonstrate that the adverse claim has a ‘minimal threshold level
of substantiality.’” Id. “The adverse claim—whether actual or potential—must be at least
colorable.” Id. (citing Fonseca v. Regan, 734 F.2d 944, 948–50 (2d Cir. 1984)).
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-01392-JLS-MSB Document 50 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 3 of 6

4
25-CV-1392 JLS (MSB)
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
I. 	Discharge
“In ‘any civil action of interpleader’ a district court may discharge the interpleading
plaintiff from further liability, enjoin the parties from instituting further related actions,
and make all other appropriate orders.” 	Great Am. Life Ins. Co. v. Brown-Kingston, No.
18-CV-2783-MCE-KJN, 2019 WL 8137717, at *3 (E.D. Cal. May 14, 2019) (citing 28
U.S.C. § 2361). 	“If an interpleader action is properly brought and the funds have been
deposited with the court, a court should readily discharge a stakeholder absent bad faith or
delay by the stakeholder.” Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Billini, No. CIV. S-06-2918 WBS KJM,
2007 WL 4209405, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 27, 2007) (citation omitted). Rule 22 interpleader
is a procedural device and requires that jurisdiction be proper under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 or
1332. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v. California State Bd. of Equalization, 858
F.2d 1376, 1382 (9th Cir. 1988).
Here, the Court finds that the requirements for Rule 22 interpleader are satisfied.
FNWL is a citizen of Washington, the Defendants are citizens of California, and the Policy
death benefit exceeds $75,000. Mot. at 4. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction over the
action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Further, the Court finds that FNWL is a disinterested
stakeholder that has a good faith belief that it may be subject to multiple liability from the
Defendants, and the Motion is unopposed. See ECF No. 48. The funds have been deposited
with the Court, ECF No. 29, and there is no evidence of bad faith or delay by FNWL.
Therefore, FNWL’s Motion is GRANTED and FNWL is discharged from this action
WITH PREJUDICE and Defendants are 	ENJOINED 	from instituting any further
litigation against FNWL relating to the Policy. 	See ReliaStar Life Ins. Co., 2023 WL
9419140, at *3 (granting unopposed motion discharging plaintiff and enjoining defendants
from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding against plaintiff after plaintiff had properly
initiated the interpleader action and deposited the disputed funds with the court).
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-01392-JLS-MSB Document 50 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 4 of 6

5
25-CV-1392 JLS (MSB)
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
II. 	Attorney’s Fees
“The amount of fees to be awarded in an interpleader action is committed to the
sound discretion of the district court.” 	Trs. of Directors Guild of Am.-Producer Pension
Benefits Plan v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426 (9th Cir. 2000), opinion amended on denial of
reh’g, 255 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted). 	“[A]ttorneys’ fee awards are
properly limited to those fees that are incurred in filing the action and pursuing the
[stakeholder’s] release from liability . . . .” Id. “Moreover, because the attorneys’ fees are
paid from the interpleaded fund itself, there is an important policy interest in seeing that
the fee award does not deplete the fund at the expense of the party who is ultimately deemed
entitled to it.” Id. at 427.
Here, FNWL requests attorneys’ fees and costs of $7,500, “to be awarded from the
Sum on deposit in the Court’s Registry.” Mot. at 5. While Plaintiff does not provide billing
records or declarations in support of its Motion, the Court finds this request reasonable as
the Motion is unopposed, and other courts in the Ninth Circuit have awarded similar fees.
See, e.g., Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Zatkulak, No. 24-CV-01708-CKD, 2024 WL 4769217,
at *3 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2024) (awarding $6,000 as reasonable attorneys’ fees);
Transamerica Life Ins. Co. v. Shubin, No. 11-CV-01958-LJO, 2012 WL 2839704, at *12
(E.D. Cal. July 10, 2012) (awarding $7,164.25 in reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs);
Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Concepcion Flores Molina, No. 23-CV-01553-CDB, 2024 WL
713446, at *4 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 21, 2024) (finding reasonable a $4,500 attorneys’ fee request
based on a non-opposition from the parties with an interest in the disputed funds).
Therefore, Plaintiff’s request for attorneys’ fees and costs is GRANTED.
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ / /
Case 3:25-cv-01392-JLS-MSB Document 50 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 5 of 6

6
25-CV-1392 JLS (MSB)
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
CONCLUSION
In light of the foregoing, the Court GRANTS Farmers New World Life Insurance
Company’s Unopposed Motion for Discharge, Attorneys’ Fees, and Dismissal with
Prejudice (ECF No. 42). The Court ORDERS as follows:
1. Plaintiff is DISCHARGED of liability to Defendants with respect to the funds
deposited with the Court that are the subject of the Policy and this action.
2. Plaintiff is DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE.
3. Defendants are permanently 	ENJOINED 	from instituting any suit against
Plaintiff with respect to the Policy funds.
4. The Clerk of Court SHALL pay Plaintiff attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount
of $7,500 from the sum on deposit in the Disputed Ownership Fund (DOF) of the
Court Registry Investment System (CRIS).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 20, 2026
Case 3:25-cv-01392-JLS-MSB Document 50 Filed 03/20/26 PageID.<pageID>
Page 6 of 6