John Hancock Life Ins. Co. v. Neuman

Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Docket Number

15-CV-1358 (KAM)(RML)

Judges

Kiyo A. Matsumoto

Acts

Judiciary And Judicial Procedure — United States Magistrate Judges — Court Officers And Employees — Jurisdiction, Powers, And Temporary Assignment

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Factual and Procedural Background

On March 13, 2015, plaintiff John Hancock Life Insurance Company initiated an interpleader action against multiple defendants, including Sara Neuman, Fremet Indig, Toby Chana Schwartz, Rivka Schmelzer, Nechama Greenfield (a/k/a Nechama Devora Werzberger), Joel Greenfield, and others. The action sought to resolve conflicting claims to a death benefit under an individual term life insurance policy. Plaintiff moved for default judgment on June 15, 2015, against certain defendants who failed to respond. The court referred this motion to Magistrate Judge Levy for a Report and Recommendation, which was issued on November 4, 2015, recommending that default judgment be granted against the defaulting defendants. No objections to this recommendation were filed by the deadline.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether default judgment should be entered against the defendants who failed to respond to the complaint in this interpleader action.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Precedent	Rule or Principle Cited For	Application by the Court
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C)	Authority for district court to accept, reject, or modify magistrate judge's findings or recommendations	The court applied this statute to review Magistrate Judge Levy’s Report and Recommendation and to adopt it in full.
Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606 (S.D.N.Y. 2001)	Standard of review when no objections are filed to a Report and Recommendation: the court need only determine if there is clear error on the face of the record	The court cited this case to justify conducting a clear-error review in the absence of objections but proceeded with a de novo review nonetheless.
Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)	Precedent for clear-error standard applied by district courts when no objections are filed	Referenced to support the court’s approach in reviewing the Report and Recommendation without objections.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged that no objections were filed to Magistrate Judge Levy’s Report and Recommendation, which recommended granting default judgment against several defendants. Although the court could have applied a clear-error standard, it conducted a de novo review of the record and the Report and Recommendation. Finding the Report well-reasoned and supported by the record, the court affirmed and adopted it in its entirety. The court thus concluded that default judgment was appropriate against the defendants who failed to respond to the complaint.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court adopted the Report and Recommendation and ordered that default judgment be entered against defendants Sara Neuman, Fremet Indig, Toby Chana Schwartz, Rivka Schmelzer, Nechama Greenfield (a/k/a Nechama Devora Werzberger), and Joel Greenfield.

Implications: The direct effect of this decision is the entry of default judgment against the specified defendants in the interpleader action. The opinion does not discuss broader legal implications or establish new precedent.

Show full summary ...

JOHN HANCOCK LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. SARA NEUMAN, FREMET INDIG, TOBY CHANA SCHWARTZ, RIVKA SCHMELZER, CHAYA ESTHER GESTETNER, ADELE TZIPORA TEITELBAUM, HENTSHE MIRIAM GROSS, NECHAMA GREENFIELD (a/k/a NECHAMA DEVORA WERZBERGER), JOEL GREENFIELD, ROIZA BLIMA (a/k/a ROSSALA HERSHKOWITZ), and JOEL GREENFIELD, JR., Defendants.

MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION MATSUMOTO, United States District Judge :

On March 13, 2015, plaintiff John Hancock Life Insurance Company ("plaintiff") commenced this interpleader action against defendants Sara Neuman, Fremet Indig, Toby Chana Schwartz, Rivka Schmelzer, Chaya Esther Gestetner, Adele Tzipora Teitelbaum, Hentshe Miriam Gross, Nechama Greenfield (a/k/a Nechama Devora Werzberger), Joel Greenfield, Roiza Blima (a/k/a Rossala Hershkowitz), and Joel Greenfield, Jr. (collectively, "defendants") seeking to determine the validity of conflicting claims for the death benefit arising under and pursuant to an individual term life insurance policy. (See generally ECF No. 1, Compl.)

On June 15, 2015, plaintiff moved for default judgment against defendants Sara Neuman, Fremet Indig, Toby Chana Schwartz, Rivka Schmelzer, Nechama Greenfield (a/k/a Nechama Devora Werzberger), and Joel Greenfield (collectively, "defaulting defendants"). (Mot. for Default J., ECF No. 29.) On October 8, 2015, the court referred plaintiff's motion for default judgment to Magistrate Judge Levy for a Report and Recommendation. (Order Referring Mot.)

On November 4, 2015, Judge Levy issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that plaintiff's motion be granted and that default judgment be entered against the defaulting defendants. (Report and Recommendation ("R&R") at 10, ECF No. 32.) Plaintiff served the Report and Recommendation on defendants and filed a Certificate of Service on November 4, 2014. (Certificate of Service, ECF No. 33.) The Report and Recommendation notified the parties of the right to file written objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of the Report and Recommendation. (Id.) Accordingly, the deadline for defaulting defendants to file objections was November 21, 2015. To date, no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed. (See generally Docket No. 15-CV-1358.)

The court adds three days pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(d). --------

A district court reviews those portions of a Report and Recommendation to which a party has timely objected under a de novo standard of review and "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations . . ." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). However, where no objections to the Report and Recommendation have been filed, the district court "need only satisfy itself that that there is no clear error on the face of the record." Urena v. New York, 160 F. Supp. 2d 606, 609-10 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (quoting Nelson v. Smith, 618 F. Supp. 1186, 1189 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). The court nonetheless conducts a de novo review of Judge Levy's Report and Recommendation.

Upon a de novo review of the record and Judge Levy's well-reasoned Report and Recommendation, the court affirms and adopts the Report and Recommendation in its entirety as the opinion of the court. Accordingly, default judgment should be entered on plaintiff's claim against defendants Sara Neuman, Fremet Indig, Toby Chana Schwartz, Rivka Schmelzer, Nechama Greenfield (a/k/a Nechama Devora Werzberger), and Joel Greenfield.

Plaintiff's counsel is ordered to serve a copy of this order upon all defendants at their last known address and file proof of service by November 25, 2015. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully requested to enter default judgment against Sara Neuman, Fremet Indig, Toby Chana Schwartz, Rivka Schmelzer, Nechama Greenfield (a/k/a Nechama Devora Werzberger), and Joel Greenfield in accordance with this order.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 24, 2015

Brooklyn, New York

/s/_________

Kiyo A. Matsumoto

United States District Judge