DB Ins. Co., Ltd. v. United States Internal Revenue Servs.

• Decision Date: 21 December 2021
• Docket Number: 19-CV-3844 (ARR) (RER)
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
• Parties: DB Insurance Company, LTD, Plaintiff, v. United States Internal Revenue Services et al., Defendants.

DB Insurance Company, LTD, Plaintiff,
v.
United States Internal Revenue Services et al., Defendants.

No. 19-CV-3844 (ARR) (RER)

United States District Court, E.D. New York

December 21, 2021

Honorable Allyne R. Ross Senior United States District Judge.

REPORT & RECOMMENDATION

Hon. Ramon E. Reyes, Jr. United States Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff DB Insurance Company, LTD (“DB” or “Plaintiff”) commenced this interpleader action on July 2, 2019, naming United States Internal Revenue Services (“United States”), Gary Arcieri (“Arcieri”), New York State Department of Taxation and Finance (“NYS Tax”), J.P Morgan Chase Bank (“Chase”), and United Window & Door Manufacturing, Inc (“United”) as defendants (collectively, “Defendants”). (ECF. No. 1 (“Compl.”)).^[1] Since the action was filed, Arcieri filed an answer and counterclaim against DB, United filed an answer and crossclaim against Arcieri, and the United States filed an answer and crossclaims against all other Defendants.

1

(ECF Nos. 6, 13 and 22). Neither NYS Tax nor Chase have responded to the Complaint or the United States' crossclaims.^[2] Also, DB has deposited the interpleader funds with the Court, less $2, 800 in attorney's fees, in the total amount of $25, 382.87. (See ECF Nos. 23, 28-31; ECF entry dated 5/19/20). Further, Your Honor has so ordered a stipulation between the United States, Arcieri and United, that resolves those parties' competing claims to the interpleader funds, such that upon resolution of this matter the interpleader funds will be distributed to the United States. (ECF No. 40).

Currently before the Court is the United States' motion for default judgment on its crossclaims against NYS Tax and Chase. (ECF No. 38).^[3] Your Honor has referred this motion to me for a report and recommendation. (ECF entry dated 3/1/21). After carefully reviewing the record, for the reasons set forth herein, I respectfully recommend that the motion be GRANTED, that default judgment be entered against NYS Tax and Chase and that the interpleader funds be distributed to the United States.

BACKGROUND

DB is an insurance corporation authorized to do business within the state of New York. (Compl. ¶ 6). DB issued an insurance policy to Arcieri covering his property in Northport, New York (the “Northport Property”). (Id., ¶12). On or about November 3, 2018, a blow valve broke on a boiler at the Northport Property and Arcieri filed a claim with DB related to the property

2

damage caused thereby. (Id. ¶ 13). After negotiation, DB and Arcieri agreed to the amount of the claim -- $28, 181.87. (Id. ¶ 16). As part of a routine investigation into the claim, DB ran a title search on the Northport Property which revealed a mortgage and several liens, including: a perfected federal tax lien from United States in the amount of $150, 599.12 from 2016; a personal judgment perfect by Chase in the amount of $92, 475.70 from 2012; a second personal judgment perfected by United in the amount of $23, 785.52 from 2015; and three tax warrants from NYS Tax, one from 2014 in the amount of $49, 809.30, and two from 2015 in the amounts of $1, 298.18 and $5, 565.43. (Id. ¶ 15). DB subsequently brought this action to determine which of the Defendants had the best claim to interpleader funds. (Id. ¶¶ 16-22).

DISCUSSION

I. Jurisdiction

“When a judgment is sought against a defaulting party, the district court has an affirmative duty to look into its jurisdiction both over the subject matter and the parties.” Hawkins v. Boyd, No. 16-CV-1592 (FB)(RML), 2016 WL 7626577, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 18, 2016) (internal quotations and citations omitted), adopted by 2017 WL 27949 (Jan. 3, 2017); see also First Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co. v. Virtuecunningham, No. 14-CV-6970 (NG)(RML), 2015 WL 9595404, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 20, 2015) (collecting cases), adopted by 2015 WL 9596154 (Dec. 18, 2015).

A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction

Determining whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists over an interpleader action requires first determining the type of action before the Court. There are two types of interpleader actions, “Rule Interpleader, ” brought under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and “Statutory Interpleader, ” brought under the Federal Interpleader Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Allstate Indem. Co. v. Collura,

3

No. 15-CV-5047 (JS)(AKT), 2018 WL 718398, at *4 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 5, 2018); CF135 Flat LLC v. Triadou SPVS.A., No. 15 Civ. 5345 (AJN), 2016 WL 1109092, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 18, 2016). “The two types of interpleader serve the same purpose and perform the same function, and differ only in their requirements for subject matter jurisdiction, venue, and service of process.” Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. ExlitesHoldingsInt'l, Inc., 368 F.Supp.3d 460, 472-73 (E.D.N.Y. 2019) (quoting Great Wall De Venezuela C.A. v. Interaudi Bank, 117 F.Supp.3d 474, 483 (S.D.N.Y. 2015)). Under both types of interpleader, the party who brings the interpleader claim is responsible for satisfying these the jurisdictional requirements. Id. at 473. Once subject-matter jurisdiction is established, both types...