The Prudential Insurance Company of America v. Merritt et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
THE PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE
COMPANY OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TYSHA MERRITT and WILLIE
MOSLEY
Defendants.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 25-cv-0223-SMY
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
YANDLE, District Judge:
The Prudential Insurance Company of America (“Prudential”) filed this interpleader action
against Defendants Tysha Merritt and Willie Mosley due to competing claims for life insurance
benefits payable following the death of its insured, Damonta Mosely. On June 9, 2025, the Clerk
of Court entered default against Defendant Willie Mosley (Doc. 11). 	Now before the Court is
Prudential’s motion for default judgment against Mosley and motion to deposit the disputed death
benefit with the Court under Rule 67 (Doc. 12). 	For the following reasons, 	both motions are
GRANTED.
Background
Prudential makes the following allegations in the Complaint (Doc. 1): Damonta Moseley
(“the Insured”), then employee of Amazon.com Services, Inc., was covered by Prudential via a
group life insurance policy. 	Following the Insured’s death on September 9, 2024, a total death
benefit became due in the amount of $148,000. Prudential is responsible for administering claims
under the policy.
Case 3:25-cv-00223-SMY Document 21 Filed 01/07/26 Page 1 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

2
The Policy provides, in relevant part:
Any amount of insurance under a Coverage for which there is no Beneficiary at
your death will be payable to the first of the following: Your (a) surviving Spouse
or Domestic Partner; (b) surviving child(ren) in equal shares; (c) surviving parents
in equal shares; (d) surviving siblings in equal shares; (e) estate.
Defendant Tysha Merrit, the insured’s mother, made a claim to the death benefit, and
Prudential paid 50% of the total. Defendant Willie Mosley also made a claim to the remaining
$74,000, claiming he is the father of the insured. 	Merrit disputes that Mosley is entitled to any
portion of the remaining amount, contending he is not listed on the birth certificate of the insured.1
Defendant Merrit answered the Complaint herein on March 13, 2025 (Doc. 8). Defendant Mosley
has not filed an Answer or otherwise appeared in this action.
Discussion
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 55, the court may enter a judgment by default when
the non-moving party has “failed to plead or otherwise defend” itself. Fed. R. Civ. P. 55(a). “As
a general rule, a default judgment establishes, as a matter of law, that defendants are liable to
Prudential as to each cause of action alleged in the complaint as long as Prudential's allegations
are well-plead.” Dundee Cement Co. v. Howard Pipe & Concrete Products, Inc., 722 F.2d 1319,
1323 (7th Cir. 1983).
Pursuant to Rule 67, “[i]f any part of the relief sought is a money judgment or the
disposition of a sum of money or some other deliverable thing, a party—on notice to every other
party and by leave of court—may deposit with the court all or part of the money or thing, whether
or not that party claims any of it.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a). Once a court grants a Rule 67 motion,
1 The insured’s initial death certificate listed Mosley as the father of the insured (Doc. 1, p. 75), but was later revised
to eliminate his identification (Id., p. 76).
Case 3:25-cv-00223-SMY Document 21 Filed 01/07/26 Page 2 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>

3
the funds “must be deposited in an interest-bearing account or invested in a court-approved,
interest-bearing instrument.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(b).
Here, Defendant Mosley submitted his waiver of service on March 20, 2025 (Doc. 7), but
has not answered or otherwise defended this action (Docs. 9, 12-2). 	As such, default judgment
against Defendant Mosley is warranted.
Additionally, Prudential seeks permission to deposit the disputed amount with the Court
before exiting the case and to be dismissed from the action with prejudice. 	Because both
defendants have been notified of this lawsuit and Prudential’s request to deposit the disputed
amount (Docs. 1, 7, 8), the Court will grant Prudential’s request to deposit the disputed Amount
until final disposition of the case. Moreover, Prudential properly brought an interpleader action to
determine the recipient of the disputed amount, and resolution of the issue is not dependent upon
Prudential’s continued presence. As such, Prudential will be dismissed from the action.
Conclusion
For 	the 	foregoing 	reasons, 	Plaintiff’s 	motion 	for 	default 	judgment 	(Doc. 	12) 	is
GRANTED. Judgment is hereby entered against Defendant Willie Mosely. The Court ORDERS
that Plaintiff be discharged from all liability and that Defendants be restrained from initiating any
action or proceeding against Plaintiff regarding the disputed amount. 	The Court DIRECTS
Plaintiff to deposit the disputed amount with the Court. Defendant Tysha Merritt is ORDERED
to submit evidence establishing her entitlement to the disputed amount under the insured’s life
insurance policy within 30 days from the entry of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: January 7, 2026 	STACI M. YANDLE
Chief U.S. District Judge
Case 3:25-cv-00223-SMY Document 21 Filed 01/07/26 Page 3 of 3 Page ID
#<pageID>