Columbus Life Insurance Company v. Walker-Macklin et al
||Columbus Life Insurance Company
||Sharon Denise Walker-Macklin and Robert Walker
||August 14, 2015
||US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
||Michael R. Barrett
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|August 24, 2016
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 25 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 8/24/2016. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|July 25, 2016
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's 9 MOTION for default judgment against defendant Robert Walker be Granted. Plaintiff's 14 MOTION for interpleader, injunction, and dismissal with prejudice be Granted; plaintiff be discharged f rom further liability as to the Policy proceeds; and plaintiff be Dismissed from this matter with prejudice. Plaintiff's 19 MOTION for Attorney fees be Granted and plaintiff be awarded attorney fees and costs in the amount of $9,164.75. Defendant Walker-Macklin's 12 MOTION for release of undisputed interpleaded funds to defendant, Sharon D. Walker-Macklin be Granted in part to the extent defendant seeks the payment of Policy proceeds and interest, less plaintiff's attor ney fees and costs, in the amount of $20,299.77, plus accrued interest. Defendants be permanently Enjoined pursuant to 28 USC 2361 from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in state or federal court that affects the Policy proceeds involve d in this interpleader action. Objections to R&R due by 8/11/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 7/25/2016. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|April 19, 2016
ORDER that plaintiff Columbus Life Insurance Company's 14 Motion for leave to deposit funds with the Court; for interpleader; for injunction; for dismissal with prejudice; and for reasonable costs and fees is Granted in part. Plaintiff's request for leave to deposit funds is Granted insofar as plaintiff seeks to deposit the Policy proceeds, plus accrued interest, with the Court. Plaintiff shall deposit into the Court's registry the amount of $27,660.46, plus any applicabl e interest, in accordance with SDO civl Rule 77.2(b), or in the alternative give bond payable to the Clerk of Court in that amount, within (14) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff's request to dposit funds is Denied insofar as plaintiff r equests to deduct any amounts for attorney fees from the deposit. Plaintiff shall file a motion for attorney fees and an affidavit proving the amount of fees within (14) days of the date of this Order. The Clerk accept for deposit into the Registry of the Court the deposit to be made by plaintiff Columbus Life Insurance Company in this cause the amount of $27,660.46, plus any applicable interest, and the Clerk promptly invest those funds into an interest bearing account maintained by the Clerk in an approved depository in accordance with SDO Civ. Rule 77.2. The Court reserves ruling on plaintiff's remaining request for relief and othe other motions filed by the parteis pending deposit of the funds and the filing of plaintiff's motion for attorney fees and supporting affidavit. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/19/2016. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system.
A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?