MacPherson-Pomeroy v. North American Company for Life and Health Insurance, 1:20-cv-00092

Background

Casey MacPherson‑Pomeroy held a $1,500,000 life insurance policy naming his wife Barbara MacPherson‑Pomeroy as primary beneficiary and Melanie Rodriguez and Debanee MacPherson Udall as contingent beneficiaries (contingents added July 2018).
In late December 2018 Casey died after an incident in Anguilla in which several people became ill; Barbara survived. No criminal charges had been filed when this action was litigated.
Insurer North American deposited the $1,500,000 with the court and filed an interpleader alleging potential multiple liability because of adverse claims and an ongoing Anguilla inquest/investigation.
Debanee (initially represented, later pro se) asserted Barbara is a “person of interest” and invoked California Probate Code § 252 (the slayer rule); Melanie disclaimed any challenge to payment to Barbara.
Barbara moved for summary judgment on North American’s interpleader; Debanee sought continuances and appointment of counsel but did not timely oppose the motion or present evidence showing Barbara feloniously and intentionally killed Casey.
The court denied Debanee’s requests for continuance and appointed counsel, held interpleader proper, granted summary judgment to Barbara, dismissed Debanee’s and Melanie’s claims with prejudice, and directed entry of judgment awarding the proceeds to Barbara.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether to extend time for Debanee to file opposition (Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(b) / excusable neglect)	Opposed — further delay prejudices plaintiff and the motion has been pending for nearly a year	Debanee: inexperienced pro se, unable to review voluminous discovery, protective order and counsel withdrawals impeded retention; prospective counsel unavailable due to medical issue	Denied — failure to show excusable neglect or good cause; excessive delay and prejudice to plaintiff
Whether court should appoint counsel for Debanee (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1))	Opposed — no basis to appoint counsel	Debanee: needs counsel because she is unschooled in law and cannot effectively respond	Denied — no constitutional right in civil case, Debanee did not seek in forma pauperis or show indigence or statutory basis
Whether interpleader was properly invoked (28 U.S.C. § 1335)	Interpleader appropriate; single fund and adverse claimants exist	North American alleged good‑faith fear of multiple liability due to contingent beneficiaries and open foreign inquest	Granted — statutory interpleader requirements met (single fund, adverse claimants, deposit, minimal diversity)
Whether Barbara is barred under CA Probate Code § 252 (slayer rule) and therefore not entitled to proceeds	Barbara: no evidence she feloniously and intentionally killed Casey; entitled as primary beneficiary	Debanee: alleges Barbara is a person of interest and that § 252 could disqualify her, entitling contingent beneficiaries	Summary judgment for Barbara — Debanee failed to produce evidence to meet § 252 burden; Barbara entitled to entire proceeds; contingent claims dismissed with prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Lee v. W. Coast Life Ins. Co., 688 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir.) (describing the two‑stage interpleader framework and standards)
Michelman v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887 (9th Cir.) (interpleader requires only a good‑faith belief in colorable competing claims and minimal threshold of substantiality)
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (U.S.) (statutory interpleader requires only minimal diversity)
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (U.S.) (summary judgment burden shifting where nonmoving party lacks evidence on an essential element)
Ahanchian v. Xenon Pictures, Inc., 624 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir.) (four‑factor test for excusable neglect under Rule 6(b))
Rhoades v. Casey, 196 F.3d 592 (5th Cir.) (interpleader claims to proceeds can be adjudicated on summary judgment when no material factual dispute exists)