Primerica Life Insurance Company v. Veronneau-Stuart et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
PRIMERICA LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
v.
BETHANY VERONNEAU-STUART
and JESSIE HERNANDEZ,
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 3:25-cv-2075-DWD
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Deposit its Admitted Liability
with the Court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67. (Doc. 9). Also before the Court
is Plaintiff’s Motion to Extend Service Deadline and for Leave to Serve Defendant Jessie
Hernandez by Publication. (Doc. 20). As explained below, each Motion is GRANTED.
On November 13, 2025, Plaintiff filed its Complaint for Interpleader under Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 22 and 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) to resolve competing claims to the
proceeds of a life insurance policy. (Doc. 1). Plaintiff alleges its “remaining admitted
liability under the Policy is $325,000.00 plus applicable interest, if any.” (Docs. 1, pg. 6; 9,
pg. 1). It “is indifferent as to which of the Defendants…is entitled to receive the Policy’s
remaining proceeds.” (Doc. 1, pg. 6). Therefore, under Rule 67, Plaintiff seeks “an order
granting it leave to deposit its admitted liability in the total amount of THREE
HUNDRED 	TWENTY-FIVE 	THOUSAND 	AND 	00/100 	DOLLARS 	($325,000.00),
representing the remaining proceeds of the Policy, plus applicable interest, if any, into an
Case 3:25-cv-02075-DWD Document 21 Filed 02/12/26 Page 1 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

interest-bearing account subject to further order of this Court indicating as to whom
among the Defendants the admitted liability should be distributed.” (Doc. 9, pgs. 2-3).
No Defendant has filed a Response to the above request, despite Plaintiff’s
representation that it provided notice of the Motion to all other parties. (Doc. 9, pg. 2).
Accordingly, the Motion for Leave to Deposit its Admitted Liability with the Court under
Rule 67 is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a) (“If any part of the relief sought is a money
judgment or the disposition of a sum of money or some other deliverable thing, a party—
on notice to every other party and by leave of court—may deposit with the court all or
part of the money or thing, whether or not that party claims any of it. The depositing
party must deliver to the clerk a copy of the order permitting deposit.”).
As to the latter Motion, which is supported by an affidavit (Doc. 20-1), Plaintiff
indicates on November 14, 2025, it sent copies of its Complaint for Interpleader, Notice
of a Lawsuit and Request to Waive Service of Summons, and Waiver of the Service of
Summons to Defendant Hernandez’s last known address in Jacksonville, Arkansas,
“which was the address he included on the claim form he submitted to [Plaintiff] seeking
the Policy’s death benefits.” (Doc. 20, pgs. 1-2). Plaintiff did not hear back from Defendant
Hernandez or receive the returned waiver of service; therefore, on December 19, 2025, it
attempted to contact Defendant Hernandez at multiple phone numbers provided by him
in prior communications with Plaintiff. (Doc. 20, pg. 2). Plaintiff could not reach
Defendant Hernandez, as the phone numbers were not in service, were connected to
someone who was unfamiliar with Defendant Hernandez, or went straight to voicemail.
(Doc. 20, pg. 2). Defendant Hernandez did not respond to Plaintiff’s voicemails or other
Case 3:25-cv-02075-DWD Document 21 Filed 02/12/26 Page 2 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

attempts at contact. (Doc. 20, pg. 2). Plaintiff also sent the aforementioned documents to
Defendant Hernandez’s last known email address on January 6, 2026, but counsel
received an automated response that the email was undeliverable. (Doc. 20, pg. 2).
Finally, Plaintiff hired a private investigator to locate Defendant Hernandez. (Doc.
20, pgs. 2-3). One potential address is associated with a non-profit organization in Dallas,
Texas, “that assists people experiencing homelessness and other at-risk individuals.”
(Doc. 20, pg. 3). Plaintiff does not believe the organization is a homeless shelter; “it allows
the unhoused to use its location as a mailing address.” (Doc. 20, pg. 3). On February 4,
2026, Plaintiff sent the aforementioned documents to that address but, as of February 10,
2026, it had not received a response from Defendant Hernandez. (Doc. 20, pg. 3).
Plaintiff’s deadline to serve Defendant Hernandez is February 12, 2026. (Doc. 20,
pg. 4). Based on the above circumstances, Plaintiff requests an additional 60 days, or until
April 13, 2026, to serve Defendant Hernandez. (Doc. 20, pg. 4). For good cause shown,
that request is GRANTED. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) (“[I]f the plaintiff shows good cause
for the failure [to serve a defendant within 90 days after the complaint is filed], the court
must extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”); Troxell v. Fedders of N. Am.,
Inc., 160 F.3d 381, 382-83 (7th Cir. 1998) (“[T]he determination whether good cause exists
or not [under Rule 4(m)] is one entrusted to the district court’s discretion.”).
Lastly, Plaintiff requests leave to effectuate service by publication in light of the
“difficulties in locating and serving Mr. Hernandez.” (Doc. 20, pg. 5). That request is also
GRANTED based on the representations of Plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(e)(1) (“Unless
federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent
Case 3:25-cv-02075-DWD Document 21 Filed 02/12/26 Page 3 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served in a judicial district of
the United States by. . .following state law for serving a summons in an action brought in
courts of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located or where
service is made.”); 735 ILCS 5/2-206(a) (“Whenever, in any action affecting property or
status within the jurisdiction of the court. . .the plaintiff or his or her attorney shall file, at
the office of the clerk of the court in which the action is pending, an affidavit showing
that the defendant resides or has gone out of this State, or on due inquiry cannot be found,
or is concealed within this State, so that process cannot be served upon him or her, and
stating the place of residence of the defendant, if known, or that upon diligent inquiry his
or her place of residence cannot be ascertained, the clerk shall cause publication to be
made in some newspaper published in the county in which the action is pending. If there
is no newspaper published in that county, then the publication shall be in a newspaper
published in an adjoining county in this State, having a circulation in the county in which
action is pending. The publication shall contain notice of the pendency of the action, the
title of the court, the title of the case, showing the names of the first named plaintiff and
the first named defendant, the number of the case, the names of the parties to be served
by publication, and the date on or after which default may be entered against such
party.”); Thrivent Fin. For Lutherans v. Liefer, No. 9-cv-483, 2009 WL 4048088, *1-2 (S.D. Ill.
Nov. 20, 2009) (finding, under the previously cited authorities, “[s]ervice of process via
publication remains [the plaintiff]’s only remaining option if the Court is to obtain
personal jurisdiction”). Accordingly, the Court approves of Plaintiff’s proposal to publish
the notice, set forth at Doc. 20, pgs. 6-7, for three successive weeks, “in a newspaper of
Case 3:25-cv-02075-DWD Document 21 Filed 02/12/26 Page 4 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>

general circulation both in East Saint Louis, Illinois, where this case was filed, and in
Dallas, Texas, where Mr. Hernandez is believed to have been last located.” See 735 ILCS
5/2-207 (“The notice required in the preceding section may be given at any time after the
commencement of the action, and shall be published at least once in each week for 3
successive weeks. No default or proceeding shall be taken against any defendant not
served with summons, or a copy of the complaint, and not appearing, unless the first
publication be at least 30 days prior to the time when the default or other proceeding is
sought to be taken.”). Plaintiff is DIRECTED to: (1) act in accordance with the specific
procedures in §§ 2-206(a) and 2-207; (2) at the onset of publication, file a notice of
publication with the Clerk of the Court that contains the future dates of publication and
the proposed publication; and (3) at the conclusion of the publication period, file an
affidavit of publication with the Clerk of the Court that is signed by a relevant member
of the classifieds/legals sections of the newspapers. See Liefer, 2009 WL 4048088 at *2).
Consistent with the above reasoning, Plaintiff’s pending Motions are GRANTED.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 12, 2026 	______________________________
DAVID W. DUGAN
United States District Judge
s/ David W. Dugan
Case 3:25-cv-02075-DWD Document 21 Filed 02/12/26 Page 5 of 5 Page ID
#<pageID>