Cannon v. Bryant

• Decision Date: 16 February 2022
• Docket Number: Civil Action 3:18-CV-1628-L
• Parties: AMY CANNON, Plaintiff, v. MAE KATHERYN BRYANT, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

AMY CANNON, Plaintiff,
v.
MAE KATHERYN BRYANT, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:18-CV-1628-L

United States District Court, N.D. Texas, Dallas Division

February 16, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Sam A. Lindsay United States District Judge

Before the court are Plaintiff Amy Cannon's Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss Counterclaims (Docs. 104, 106), filed November 16, 2021, and November 17, 2021; Plaintiff's Requests to Continue Discovery (Docs. 115, 137), filed December 2, 2021, and January 6, 2022; and Defendant Mae Katheryn Bryant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 129), filed December 16, 2021. After considering the motions, briefs, admissible summary judgment evidence, the file, record, and applicable law, the court denies Plaintiff Amy Cannon's Rule 12(b)(6) Motions to Dismiss Counterclaims (Docs. 104, 106); denies Plaintiff's Requests to Continue Discovery (Docs. 115, 137); and grants Defendant Mae Katheryn Bryant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 129).

I. Factual and Procedural Background

This action was originally filed on June 22, 2018, as an interpleader action by State Farm Insurance Company (“State Farm”) regarding a $300, 000 life insurance policy (“Policy”) issued by State Farm on June 1, 2013, under which Amy Cannon's (“Plaintiff” or Ms. Cannon”) deceased ex-husband and Katheryn Mae Bryant's (“Defendant” or Ms. Bryant”) son, Enoch D. Bryant, Jr. (the “Decedent” or the “Insured”), was the Insured. Ms. Cannon and Ms. Bryant both submitted

1

claims to recover the Policy proceeds after the Insured's death on April 4, 2018. Ms. Bryant asserts that she is entitled to the Policy proceeds as the successor beneficiary under the Policy and as the mother and heir of her son because the Insured's and Ms. Cannon's January 22, 2016 divorce decree did not designate Ms. Cannon as a beneficiary under the Policy, and the Insured did not redesignate Ms. Cannon as his beneficiary under the Policy after their divorce as required by Texas law and section 9.301 of the Texas Family Code. Ms. Cannon disagrees and contends that she is entitled to the Policy proceeds as the primary beneficiary under the Policy. Alternatively, she asserts that section 9.301's redesignation language and requirement are unconstitutionally vague for lack of a definition for explanation as to what is required to redesignate a former spouse as a beneficiary and should not be considered in determining whether she is entitled to recover the Policy proceeds.

After Ms. Cannon and Ms. Bryant both submitted competing claims asserting rights to the Policy proceeds in April and May of 2018, State Farm filed this interpleader action and was granted permission to deposit the Policy proceeds into the registry of the court (Doc. 40). Ms. Cannon initially focused her litigation efforts in this action against State Farm, State Farm insurance agent Judy Buckley, and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, and asserted claims against all of them. Judy Buckley and Ken Paxton were dismissed from the suit as a result of the court's December 3, 2018 order (Doc. 23) sua sponte striking Plaintiff's First Amended Answer and Third-Party Claim (Doc. 9) for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15. Ms. Cannon's claims against State Farm were dismissed with prejudice as a result of two separate memorandum and opinion orders (Docs. 40, 65), and judgment was entered in State Farm's favor as to such claims, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b), on April 21, 2021. The court then realigned the parties April 23, 2021, with Ms. Cannon as Plaintiff and Ms. Bryant as Defendant, and entered

2

a Scheduling Order (Doc. 72) that included the following deadlines: amendment of pleadings by June 15, 2021; and completion of all discovery by October 1, 2021; with dispositive motions due by October 15, 2021.

On September 23, 2021, the court scheduled a hearing for November 2, 2021, to address some confusion created by the parties' new pleading amendments that were filed without leave of court and certain questionable emergency motions for default judgment filed by Plaintiff. The day before the hearing, Plaintiff withdrew her default judgment motion and two related motions for leave to supplement the appendix she filed in support of the default judgment motion. During the hearing, the court expressed frustration with Plaintiff's counsel's habit of filing motions of questionable merit and her repeated failure throughout this case to adhere to the court's orders, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Northern District or Texas's Local Civil Rules. These failures unnecessarily strained scarce judicial resources and delayed the proceedings in this case. During the hearing, Plaintiff's counsel also raised concerns regarding discovery. To accommodate Plaintiff, the court revived and continued the then-expired deadline to complete discovery to December 3, 2021, but it warned that discovery would not be further continued. After the hearing, the court entered an Amended Scheduling Order on November 2, 2021 (Doc. 97), reflecting that extension. The Amended Scheduling Order also continued the deadline for filing dispositive motions to December 17, 2021.

On November 8, 19, 22, and 23, 2021, Plaintiff filed Notices to depose State Farm's corporate representative, which State Farm moved to quash on November 29, 2021. State Farm also sought relief in the form of a protective order. On November 30, 2021, the court quashed the deposition scheduled by Plaintiff to take place that same day and the subpoena issued for such

3

deposition but referred to the magistrate judge for expedited consideration and determination the remaining discovery issues raised by State Farm's motion.

On December 2, 2021, before briefing on State Farm's motion was complete, Plaintiff filed her motion to amend the scheduling order to further extend the deadline to complete discovery to January 4, 2022, on the grounds that she needed “additional time to complete the already started process of obtaining a deposition or questions in lieu of deposition from State Farm.” Doc. 115. In an apparent attempt to side-step the court's decision to quash her deposition notices and avoid any further unfavorable rulings by the undersigned, Plaintiff's counsel also submitted a letter to the clerk of the court that included an unusual request for the clerk to refer her motion to the magistrate judge based on the assertion that it pertained to the discovery dispute surrounding State Farm's motion to quash and request for a protective order. This request prompted the court to enter an order later that same day (Doc. 117) explaining that, because Ms. Cannon's motion was opposed by Ms. Bryant, it would not rule on the motion until after it was briefed. The order further explained that, notwithstanding counsel's suggestion to the contrary, the court did not consider Plaintiff's motion to amend the scheduling order to continue the discovery deadline to be procedurally related to non-party State Farm's motion that was referred on November 30, 2021, to the magistrate judge for determination.

After briefing on State Farm's motion was complete, the magistrate judge conducted a hearing on the motion. An electronic order was entered on December 22, 2021, granting the motion and relief sought by State Farm for the reasons stated during the hearing. This ruling by the magistrate judge was not appealed by Plaintiff.

In the meantime, Defendant moved on December 16, 2021, for summary judgment on her and Ms. Cannon's claims to recover the Policy proceeds, as well as Ms. Cannon's constitutional

4

challenge to section 9.301 of the Texas Family Code. On January 6, 2022, Plaintiff filed her response to the summary judgment, which includes another request to continue discovery. Four days later, Plaintiff moved on January 10, 2022, for leave to exceed the page limit for her previously filed summary judgment response. She also requested to file an amended signed affidavit because her prior affidavit that was filed as part of the appendix to her summary judgment response was unsigned. To avoid unnecessary delay and briefing on yet another issue created by Plaintiff's counsel, the court addressed these requests by separate order on January 14, 2022, without awaiting a response by Ms. Bryant. No reply in support of the summary judgment motion was filed.

For the reasons herein explained, Ms. Cannon has not established her entitlement to additional discovery that would further delay the resolution of this litigation unnecessarily, and Ms. Bryant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on both parties' claims.

II. Plaintiff's Requests to Continue Discovery (Docs. 115, 137)

A. Motion to Extend Discovery and Amend Scheduling Order (Doc. 115)

Notwithstanding the court's warning about additional discovery extensions, Plaintiff moved one month later on December 2, 2021, for a further extension of the discovery deadline from December 3, 2021, to January 4, 2022, to give her additional time to depose State Farm and obtain records. Realizing that her request would also necessitate a continuance of the trial, ^[1] she also requested that the court make necessary adjustments to the scheduling order and trial setting

5

scheduled for March 2021, to the extent necessary to accommodate her requested discovery extension. The court determines for the reasons that follow that this motion by Plaintiff will be denied.

On November 2, 2021, the court previously revived and extended the then-expired October 1, 2021 deadline to December 3, 2021, to address the concerns raised by Plaintiff during the inperson hearing held on November 2, 2021, regarding outstanding discovery. Plaintiff, nevertheless, asserts that it is unclear to her why the court “sua sponte revised” the scheduling order and extended the October 1, 2021 discovery deadline to December 3, 2021. Def.'s Br. 2 (Doc. 116)...