United Wisconsin Insurance Company v. Wang, individually et al

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 7:23-cv-00340 Document 73 Filed 03/20/26in TXSD Pagelof8
United States District Court
Southem District of Texas

ENTERED
March 20, 2026

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Nathan Ochsner, Clerk

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
MCALLEN DIVISON

UNITED WISCONSIN INSURANCE
COMPANY
Plaintiff,

CIVIL ACTION NO. 7:23-cv-340

Versus

YUAN WANG, ET AL.
Defendants.

CO? (Or (OD OD 60D COD (OD

MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff, United Wisconsin Insurance Company, initiated this action by filing Original
Complaint in Interpleader by Plaintiff United Wisconsin Insurance Company (“Original
Complaint”), on October 4, 2023, naming the contestants, Yuan Wang, individually and as next
friend of Z.W., a minor, Mildred Hack, Ernelyn Hack, Tim Hack, Jennifer Colbert, and Joy
Dimarucut, individually and as next friend of T.J.H., a minor, as defendants. (See Dkt. No. 1).
Therein, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, Plaintiff sought to
deposit proceeds under a commercial auto insurance policy into the Court’s registry, requesting
the Court review the rival claims and determine the proper recipient of the funds. (U/d. at 1). The
Hack Family (Mildred Hack, Emelyn Hack, and Terry Hack on Behalf of Troy Hack’s Estate) filed
The Hack Family’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment”) on January 14, 2026, seeking dismissal of the Wangs. (See Dkt. No. 66). This matter
was subsequently referred to the undersigned magistrate judge for memorandum and
recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and LR 72.

After careful review of the record and relevant law, the undersigned is of the opinion that

the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment should be GRANTED.

AUTHENTICATED
U.S. GOVERNMENT
INFORMATION

GPO

1

Case 7:23-cv-00340 Document 73 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 2of8

I. BACKGROUND

This dispute stems from the unfortunate incident from July 10, 2023, that led to Troy
Hack’s untimely death. As a result of competing claims to the underlying insurance policy, on
October 4, 2023, Wisconsin United Insurance Company filed an action in interpleader to determine
the appropriate distribution of proceeds payable under the policy to the survivors of Troy Hack.
(See generally, Dkt. No. 1).

On April 14, 2025, the Honorable Judge Tipton issued an Order allowing United Wisconsin
Insurance Company to deposit the policy proceeds into the Registry of the Court and dismissing
United Wisconsin Insurance Company from this matter.! (See Dkt. No. 61).

On October 27, 2025, the Hack Family filed Status Report and Motion for Partial
Distribution. (See Dkt. No. 62). Therein, the Hack Family provided a comprehensive case history
and requested that the Court make a partial distribution to Mildred Hack pursuant to Federal Rule
of Civil Procedure 67(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 2042. (/d. at 5). Particularly relevant of the case history
are as follows:

(1) On July 10, 2023, Troy Hack is hit by a motor vehicle while walking across
the street to the Hidalgo County Courthouse in Edinburg, Texas, and dies.
(Dkt. No. 62 at 1 (Ex. 2)).

(2) On July 12, 2023, the Hack Family files its original petition against the Rio
Valley Trucking, LLC in the 229th District Court of Starr County, Texas,
Cause No. DC-23-336 (“Starr County Lawsuit”). (Dkt. No. 62 at 1 (Ex. 4)).

(3) On July 28, 2023, the Hack Family files letters of administration regarding
Troy’s Estate in the Hidalgo County, Probate Court, Cause No. P-42312
(“Probate Lawsuit”). (Dkt. No. 62 at 2 (Ex. 5)).

(4) On July 31, 2023, the Wangs file their original petition against Rio Valley
Trucking, LLC and Francisco Javier Barajas in the 275th District Court of
Hidalgo County, Texas, Cause No. C-3030-23-E for Troy’s Death (“Hidalgo
County Lawsuit”). (Dkt. No. 62 at 2 (Ex. 7)).

(5) On October 4, 2023, United Wisconsin Insurance Company files this action
in interpleader. (Dkt. No. 62 at 2; see Dkt. No. 1 (Ex. 9)).

' However, the Court refused to dismiss any claims involving “by way of assignment or a turnover order,
for bad faith, negligence, Stowers and its progeny, and similar contractual, extra-contractual, and tort causes
of action[.]” (Dkt. No. 61 at 2).

Case 7:23-cv-00340 Document 73 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 3of8

(6) On March 18, 2025, the Wangs intervene in the Starr County Lawsuit. (Dkt.
No. 62 at 3 (Ex. 15)).

(7) On August 22, 2025, Counsel for the Wangs file a motion to withdraw in
both the Starr County and Hidalgo County lawsuits. (Dkt. No. 62 at 3 (Ex.
20 & Ex. 21)).

(8) On August 25, 2025, the Hack Family files a Motion for Summary
Judgment in the Probate Lawsuit, seeking to dismiss the Wangs. (Dkt. No.
62 at 3 (Ex. 23)).

(9) On August 26, 2025, Counsel for the Wangs file a motion to withdraw in
the Probate Lawsuit. (Dkt. No. 62 at 3 (Ex. 24)).

(10) On September 18, 2025, the Starr County Court signs an order allowing
Counsel for the Wangs to withdraw and admonishing the Wangs to obtain
substitute counsel. (Dkt. No. 62 at 4 (Ex. 25)).

(11) On September 23, 2025, the Probate Court signs an order allowing Counsel
for the Wangs to withdraw and admonishing the Wangs to obtain substitute
counsel. (Dkt. No. 62 at 4 (Ex. 26)).

(12) On October 10, 2025, the Hidalgo County Court signs an order allowing
Counsel for the Wangs to withdraw from the Probate Lawsuit and
admonishing the Wangs to obtain substitute counsel. (Dkt. No. 62 at 4 (Ex.
28)).

(13) On October 21, 2025, the Hack Family files a motion for partial summary
judgment in the Starr County Lawsuit seeking dismissal of the Wangs’
claims with prejudice. (Dkt. No. 62 at 4 (Ex. 29)).

(14) On November 12, 2025, the Starr County Court issued an order dismissing
the Wangs from the lawsuit with prejudice for lack of admissible evidence
establishing spouse, child, or parent status. (Dkt. No. 66 at 2 (Ex. A)).

(15) On January 14, 2026, the Hack Family files the present Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment, seeking to dismiss the Wangs from the interpleader
action. (See Dkt. No. 66).

(16) On February 4, 2026, without answering the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment, Counsel for the Wangs files a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel
for the Wangs. (Dkt. No. 68).

(17) On February 26, 2026, this Court grants the Motion to Withdraw, allowing
Counsel for the Wangs to withdraw from representation. (Dkt. No. 72).

As noted, and before the Court for consideration, the Hack Family filed their Motion for
Partial Summary Judgment on January 14, 2026. (See Dkt. No. 66). The Hack Family claims the
Wangs must “establish their alleged spouse, child, or parent relationship to Troy Hack.” (/d. at 2).
However, after adequate time for discovery, the Hack Family argues, “the Wangs cannot produce
admissible evidence that Yuan Wang is Troy Hack’s surviving spouse, that Z.W. is Troy Hack’s

child, or that either was Troy Hack’s spouse or qualifies as a statutory beneficiary of Troy’s estate.”

Case 7:23-cv-00340 Document 73 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page4of8

(/d.). The Hack Family suggests that, pursuant to Rule 56(c)(1)(B), summary judgment should be
granted where a party cannot produce admissible evidence to support an essential element of its
claim. (/d.). Accordingly, the Hack Family concludes that because the Wangs are unable to meet

their burden, their claims to the interpleaded funds must fail, and summary judgment is warranted.

(Id.).

Il. APPLICABLE LAW/ANALYSIS

Summary judgment is proper “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and
admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Celotex Corp.
v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)). “Rule 56(c) mandates the
entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party
who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that
party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.” Jd. The party moving
for summary judgment bears the initial burden of demonstrating the basis for summary judgment
and identifying those portions of the record, discovery, and any affidavits supporting the
conclusion that there is no genuine issue of material fact. /d. at 323. If the moving party meets
that burden, the nonmoving party must use evidence cognizable under Rule 56 to demonstrate the
existence of a genuine issue of material fact. /d. at 324.

“A genuine issue of material fact exists if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the
nonmoving party.” Macon v. BP Expl. & Prod. Inc., 605 F.Supp.3d 871, 880 (E.D. La. 2022)
(citing Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). “Material facts are not
genuinely disputed when a rational trier of fact could not find for the nonmoving party upon a

review of the record taken as a whole.” Jd. (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio

Case 7:23-cv-00340 Document 73 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 5of8

Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); EEOC v. Simbaki, Ltd, 767 F.3d 475, 481 (5th Cir. 2014)).
“Unsubstantiated assertions, conclusory allegations, and merely colorable factual bases are
insufficient to defeat a motion for summary judgment.” Jd. (citing Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249-50;
Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (Sth Cir. 1994); Hopper v. Frank, 16 F.3d 92, 97 (Sth
Cir. 1994)). The Court may not resolve credibility issues or weigh evidence. /d. (citing Delta &
Pine Land Co. v. Nationwide Agribusiness Ins. Co., 530 F.3d 395, 398-99 (Sth Cir. 2008)). The
Court will “assess the evidence, review the facts, and draw any appropriate inferences based on
the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” /d. (citing
Tolan y. Cotton, 572 U.S. 650, 656-57 (2014); Daniels v. City of Arlington, 246 F.3d 500, 502 (Sth
Cir. 2001)). However, the Court will only draw reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmovant
“when there is an actual controversy, that is, when both parties have submitted evidence of
contradictory facts.” Jd. (quoting Little, 37 F.3d at 1075).

Importantly, “[w]hen the nonmovant will bear the burden of proof at trial on the dispositive
issue, the moving party may simply point to insufficient admissible evidence to establish an
essential element of the nonmovant’s claim in order to satisfy its summary-judgment burden.” /d.
(citing Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-25; Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(B)). Thus, unless there is a genuine
issue that could support judgment in favor of the nonmovant, summary judgment must be granted.
Id.

Here, the Wangs are unable to prove they are entitled to any portion of the interpleaded
funds and summary judgment is warranted. On December 18, 2023, the Wangs filed Defendant
Yuan Wang, Individually and as Next of Friend of Z.W., a Minor’s Answer to Plaintiff's Original
Complaint in Interpleader by Plaintiff United Wisconsin Insurance Company, claiming that Yuan

Wang, as next friend of Z.W. (“Wangs Answer’), is an alleged personal representative of Troy

Case 7:23-cv-00340 Document 73 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 6of8

Hack, that Wang is a surviving spouse of Troy Hack, and that Z.W. is a biological child of Troy
Hack. (Dkt. No. 18 at 2). On October 2, 2024, the Wangs filed Defendant Yuan Wang, as Next of
Friend of Z.W., a Minor’s Amended Answer to Plaintiff’s Original Complaint (“Wangs Amended
Answer’), now denying that Yuan Wang is a surviving spouse or personal representative of Troy
Hack, but maintaining that Z.W. is the biological child of Troy Hack. (Dkt. No. 56 at 2).

However, nearly a year and a half has elapsed since the Wangs Amended Answer, and the
Wangs have made almost no appearance in the case. In fact, the Wangs filed no response to the
Motion for Partial Distribution (Dkt. No. 62) and no response to the Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (Dkt. No. 66), now pending for over two months. Instead, Counsel for the Wangs
withdrew from the representation, citing irreconcilable differences, difficulty communicating, and
disagreement regarding the scope of the representation, specifically noting that the client demands
a United States Visa as result of the matter. (Dkt. No. 68 at 2-3). Similarly, it appears the Wangs
have been dismissed from the Starr County wrongful death proceeding (See Dkt. No. 66-1 at 1),
as well as the Hidalgo County Probate proceeding (See Dkt. No. 71 at 1; Ex. No. 1). Thus, the
undersigned concludes that the Hack Family “point[s] to insufficient admissible evidence to
establish an essential element of the [Wang’s] claim in order to satisfy its summary-judgment
burden[,]” and summary judgment in their favor is appropriate. Macon, 605 F.Supp.3d at 880; see,
e.g., Sturgill vy. Am. Red Cross, No. 22-cv-11837, 2025 WL 893801, at *1 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 24,
2025) (“[I|f a movant points out that the record does not contain any materials the nonmovant
could use to prove an issue for which the nonmovant has the burden of proof at trial [], then the
nonmovant can only avoid summary judgment by showing otherwise.”).

As such, the Court finds that summary judgment is warranted.

Case 7:23-cv-00340 Document 73 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 7 of 8

Il. CONCLUSION

Recommended Disposition
After careful review of the filings and relevant case law, and for reasons outlined above, it
is recommended that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Dkt. No. 66) be GRANTED.

Accordingly, it is further recommended that the Wangs be DISMISSED from the suit.

Notice to the Parties

Within 14 days after being served a copy of this report, a party may serve and file specific,
written objections to the proposed recommendations. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b). The district judge to whom this case is assigned shall make a de novo determination upon
the record, or after additional evidence, of any portion of the magistrate judge’s disposition to
which specific written objection has been made. The district judge may accept, reject, or modify
the recommended decision, receive further evidence, or recommit the matter to the magistrate
judge with instructions.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained
in this report within 14 days after service shall bar an aggrieved party from de novo review by the
District Court of the proposed findings and recommendations and from appellate review of factual
findings accepted or adopted by the District Court, except on grounds of plain error or manifest
injustice. See Douglas v. United Serv. Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1428-29 (Sth Cir. 1996) (en
banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

Instructions to the Clerk of the Court
The Clerk shall mail a copy of this order to Yuan Wang at the following address:
HAINA COMMUNITY
EAST FENGHE ROAD, LIANHU DISTRICT
XI’ AN, SHAANXI, 710000

CHINA.

7

Case 7:23-cv-00340 Document 73 Filed 03/20/26 in TXSD Page 8 of 8

All other parties shall be notified by the Clerk by ECF/PACER.

DONE at McAllen, Texas, this 20th day of March 2026.

WA J Juan F. Alanis

United States Magistrate Judge