Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Salina B. Norton & Vincent Isaac

November 15, 2011

THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA
v.
SALINA B. NORTON & VINCENT ISAAC



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Christina A. Snyder, U.S. District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Title

Present: The Honorable CHRISTINA A. SNYDER, U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

RITA SANCHEZ N/A N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter / Recorder Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

N/A N/A

Proceedings: (In Chambers:) CROSS-CLAIM PLAINTIFF NORTON'S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (filed 6/24/2011)

INTRODUCTION

On September 16, 2010, The Prudential Insurance Company of America ("Prudential") filed the instant interpleader complaint in this Court against Salina B. Norton ("Norton") and Vincent Isaac ("Isaac"). Prudential insured Charles L. Isaac (the "Insured") under a group life insurance policy issued to the Regents of the University of California No. G-9-7000 (the "Policy"). Compl. ¶ 6. On February 15, 2009, the Insured died. Compl. ¶ 7. At the time of death, the Insured was covered for a total $148,000 in life insurance benefits (the "Benefits"). Compl. ¶ 8. Under the Policy, if no person is designated as the beneficiary by the Insured, the Benefits are payable to the first of the following: (1) the Insured's spouse; (2) the Insured's children; (3) the Insured's parents in equal shares; (4) the Insured's siblings; and (5) the Insured's estate. Compl. ¶ 9. Prudential alleges that at the time of his death, the Insured had not designated a beneficiary, was not married, and had no children. Compl. ¶¶ 10--12. Subsequently, Isaac made a claim for the Benefits, alleging that he is the Insured's father and that Norton should be disqualified from receiving the Benefits as the Insured's mother, due to failure to provide support. Compl. ¶ 13. Norton also made a claim to the Benefits, alleging that she is the Insured's mother and that Isaac is not the Insured's father or should otherwise be disqualified from receiving the Benefits due to failure of support. Compl. ¶ 14.

On November 8, 2010, Norton filed an answer to the complaint and crossclaims against Isaac seeking an order: (1) declaring her the sole living parent of the Insured and awarding her the entirety of the Benefits; (2) offsetting any amounts awarded to Isaac to account for unpaid child support; and (3) offsetting any amounts awarded to Isaac to account for unreimbursed funeral expenses. See Dkt. 9. On November 22, 2010, Isaac filed an answer to Norton's crossclaims. Dkt. 12.

On December 10, 2010, Norton filed a motion to strike portions of Isaac's answer to her crossclaims pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). On January 24, 2011, Isaac filed an opposition to Norton's motion. Norton replied on January 31, 2011. On February 7, 2011, the Court issued an order that granted in part and denied in part Norton's motion. Dkt. 27.

On June 24, 2011, Norton filed the instant motion for summary judgment, seeking a declaration that Norton is the sole living parent of the Insured, awarding Norton the entirety of the Benefits, and dismissing all remaining claims and crossclaims with prejudice, or, in the alternative, awarding Norton immediate distribution of the one-half of the Benefits which are not contested. Isaac filed his opposition on July 29, 2011, and amended it on August 3, ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.