Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York v. Andrews et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
GENWORTH LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY OF NEW YORK,
Interpleader Plaintiff,
v.
SKAVON ANDREWS, AVERY
MUHAMMAD, TAURON SMITH,
ANNA STESIA ANDREWS,
NICOLE ANDREWS a/n/f for
MARCELLIS ANDREWS, and
JOHN DOES 1 THROUGH 10,
Interpleader Defendants.
6:23-CV-6197-CJS-MWP
DECISION and ORDER
INTRODUCTION
This is an action for interpleader pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335. 	Now before the
Court is a motion (ECF No. 42) by the Interpleader Plaintiff for deposit and discharge
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2361. The unopposed application is granted as set forth below.
BACKGROUND
Interpleader Plaintiff Genworth Life Insurance Company of New York (“Genworth”)
is a New York corporation, with a principal place of business at New York, New York.
Interpleader 	Defendant 	and 	claimant 	Skavon 	Andrews 	(“Ms. 	Andrews”) 	is
domiciled in the State of New York, previously residing at 549 Vintage Lane, Rochester,
NY 14615, and currently incarcerated at the Albion Correctional Facility, 3595 State
Case 6:23-cv-06197-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/15/24 Page 1 of 6

2
School Road, Albion, NY 14411. Ms. Andrews was married to Rawleigh Andrews at the
time of his death. Docket No. 34 (Skavon Andrew’s Answer to the Complaint).
Interpleader 	Defendant 	and 	claimant 	Avery 	Muhammad 	(“Mr. 	Muhammad”),
residing at 971 Forest Glen, Jonesboro, GA 30328, claims to be a son and heir to
Rawleigh Andrews. Docket No. 9 at page 3 (“Mr. Avery Muhammad is heir of decedent
(Rawleigh Andrews). . . .”); Docket No. 24 at page 2 (“Defendant-Avery Muhammad . . .
son and descendant/heir to Rawleigh Andrews, residing at 971 Forest Glen, Jonesboro,
GA 30328 is given full-fledged inheritance rights to Rawleigh Andrews Estate. . . .”)
Interpleader Defendant and claimant Tauron Smith is a grandson and heir to
Rawleigh Andrews, residing at 1463 Route 394, Falconer, NY 14733.
Interpleader Defendant and claimant Anna Stesia Andrews is a granddaughter and
heir to Rawleigh Andrews, residing at 40 Glenora Gardens Apt 3, Rochester, NY 14615.
Interpleader Defendant and claimant Marcellus Andrews is a grandson and heir to
Rawleigh Andrews, and is a minor residing with his mother, Nicole Andrews, at 93
Cadillac Avenue, Rochester, NY 14606. See Docket No. 32 at page 8 (“If Skavon
Andrews is unable to receive life insurance proceeds, then it should be split between the
grandchildren, Tauron, AnnStesia, and Marcellus as they would be the ones to receive it
since their father Trevino Andrews has passed away.”).
On or about February 9, 2012, Genworth issued life insurance policy number
M372324 with a death benefit amount of $100,000.00 (the “Policy”) to Rawleigh Andrews,
who designated his wife, Ms. Andrews, as the primary beneficiary under the Policy. There
are no contingent beneficiaries designated.
Case 6:23-cv-06197-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/15/24 Page 2 of 6

3
On or about September 20, 2022, Rawleigh Andrews was found deceased at his
home in Rochester, NY. Docket No. 20, Complaint at ¶13. According to the news
accounts, the cause of death was a gunshot wound to the head. Id. at ¶ 14. At the time
this action was commenced, the decedent’s wife, Ms. Andrews, was the sole suspect in
the homicide investigation. Genworth therefore withheld release of the Policy’s proceeds.
Id. at 17. Published news reports indicate that Ms. Andrews was later convicted after trial
of criminally negligent homicide in the death of Mr. Andrews and sentenced to a prison
term of one-to-three years.1
On April 10, 2023, Genworth filed this interpleader action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§§1335, 1397, and 2361. The proceeds under the Policy exceed the sum of $500.00 and
two or more of the claimants are of diverse citizenship within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1332(a) and 1335.
On June 13, 2024, Genworth filed the subject motion, ECF No. 42. The application
states, in pertinent part, as follows: “[Genworth] hereby files Motion for Leave to Deposit
Interpleader Funds and For an Injunction Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2361. G[enworth]
further moves that, upon its deposit of Interpleader Funds, that this Court issue an order
discharging and dismissing G[enworth] from this action.” Regarding the amount of money
to be deposited with the Court, the application states: “[T]he amount of the ‘Policy,’ the
subject of the dispute in this matter, was $100,000.00. Docket No. 20, ¶ 11. The proceeds
of the Policy have earned 1% interest since the date of death of 09/20/2022, and as of
06/07/2024, the accrued interest has totaled $1715.07. Accordingly, when G[enworth]
1 See, https://13wham.com/news/local/greece-woman-sentenced-for-fatally-shooting-husband-
in-driveway-skavon-rawleigh-andrews-vintage-lane
Case 6:23-cv-06197-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/15/24 Page 3 of 6

4
deposits the interpleader funds with the Court’s leave, the amount of the Policy’s
proceeds will be slightly higher than $101,715.07.” ECF No. 42-1 at p. 6.
On June 14, 2024, the Court issued a Text Order (ECF No. 43) directing that, in
accordance with the Local Rules of Civil Procedure, any opposing papers had to be filed
within fourteen days after service of the motion. 	More than fourteen days have now
passed, and no opposing papers have been filed.
DISCUSSION
Genworth is moving pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2361 for an order granting leave to
deposit funds with the Court and discharging and dismissing Genworth from this action.
The legal principles applicable to such an application have been stated as follows:
28 U.S.C. § 2361 permits a district court to “to discharge the stakeholder in
any 	civil 	interpleader 	action 	from 	further 	liability 	to 	claimants.” 	Solar
Spectrum LLC v. AEC Yield Cap. LLC, No. 18CV7950GBDJLC, 2019 WL
5381798, at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 2019) (citing Mendez v. Teachers Ins.
and Annuity Ass'n and College Ret. Equities Fund, 982 F.2d 783, 787 (2d
Cir. 1992)). To satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of an interpleader
claim, a plaintiff must allege that: (1) it is in possession of a single fund of
value greater than $500; (2) the action involves two or more adverse
claimants of diverse citizenship; (3) it has deposited or is depositing the fund
with the court; and (4) it has a real and reasonable fear of double liability or
vexatious, conflicting claims. See id. at *4; 28 U.S.C. § 1335.
***
Generally, when an interpleader plaintiff has satisfied the Section 1335
jurisdictional requirements of an interpleader claim, “[t]he court should
readily 	grant 	discharge 	of 	the 	stakeholder, 	unless 	it 	finds 	that 	the
stakeholder may be independently liable to a claimant or has failed to satisfy
the various requirements of interpleader ...” Metro. Life Ins. Co., 966 F.
Supp. 2d at 103 (internal citations omitted).
New York City Health & Hosps. Corp. v. Hunt, No. 23-CV-1450 (JHR) (KHP), 2024 WL
2941271, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. May 24, 2024), report and recommendation adopted, No. 23
CIV. 1450 (JHR) (KHP), 2024 WL 3046406 (S.D.N.Y. June 18, 2024). Additionally,
Case 6:23-cv-06197-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/15/24 Page 4 of 6

5
[u]nder 28 U.S.C. § 2361, a district court may restrain parties in an
interpleader action “from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any
State or United States court affecting the property, instrument or obligation
involved in the interpleader action until further order of the court” and to
“make the injunction permanent.” 28 U.S.C. § 2361. This section “enables
a party meeting the requirements of [§]1335 to obtain a restraining order
without 	following 	the 	procedures 	set 	forth 	in 	[Federal 	Rule 	of 	Civil
Procedure] 65[ ], which normally governs the issuance of injunctive relief.”
Sotheby's, Inc. v. Garcia, 802 F. Supp. 1058, 1066 (S.D.N.Y. 1992). “An
injunction 	against 	overlapping 	lawsuits 	is 	desirable 	to 	insure 	the
effectiveness of the interpleader remedy. It prevents the multiplicity of
actions and reduces the possibility of inconsistent determinations.” Id. at
1066.
PMP Corp. 401(K) Profit Sharing Plan v. Kingrasaphone, No. 3:17-CV-01085 (VAB), 2017
WL 11660831, at *2 (D. Conn. July 11, 2017).
Here, upon Genworth depositing the Policy proceeds with the Court it will have
satisfied 	the 	Section 	1335 	jurisdictional 	requirements 	of 	an 	interpleader 	claim.
Additionally, there is no indication that Genworth may be independently liable to a
claimant or that it has otherwise failed to satisfy any requirement of interpleader.
Furthermore, no claimant has opposed the application. 	Consequently, the Court grants
the application.
CONCLUSION
Genworth’s application (ECF No. 42) is granted. 	Genworth is granted leave and
directed to deposit the Policy proceeds with the registry of the Court within thirty (30)
days. Upon depositing the Policy proceeds with the Court, Genworth is directed to notify
the undersigned and submit a proposed order releasing and discharging Genworth from
any further liability to any party in this action arising out of the subject Policy, and
Case 6:23-cv-06197-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/15/24 Page 5 of 6

6
permanently enjoining Defendants from initiating any litigation in any forum over the
Policy against Genworth.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: 	July 15, 2024
Rochester, New York
CHARLES J. SIRAGUSA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Case 6:23-cv-06197-CJS-CDH Document 45 Filed 07/15/24 Page 6 of 6