New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation v. Hunt
- Rearden
- 1:23-cv-01450
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation v. Hunt, Judge Rearden granted the stakeholder’s motion for discharge and dismissal, protecting it from further liability.
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation was discharged from the interpleader case and protected against further liability. Ronald Hunt, Stephanie Hunt-Guillaume, Desmond Hunt, Courtney Hunt, and Adrian Daniel Williams were the defendants in interpleader, but the opinion does not decide their competing claims to the account balance.
What happened
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation v. Hunt involved competing claims to a deceased person’s vested account balance under the Corporation’s non-ERISA retirement plan. The Corporation asked the court to discharge it from the interpleader case and protect it from further liability.
The Corporation’s motion was unopposed. Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended granting it, and no party filed objections. The district court therefore reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden adopted the recommendation in full and granted the Corporation’s motion for discharge and dismissal. The court protected the Corporation from further liability under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 and directed the Clerk to terminate the Corporation as a party.
The detailed version
- New York City Health And Hospitals Corporation v. Hunt · No. 1:23-cv-01450
- Rearden
- June 18, 2024
Background
New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation, identified as the stakeholder, filed an interpleader action against Ronald Hunt, Stephanie Hunt-Guillaume, Desmond Hunt, Courtney Hunt, and Adrian Daniel Williams. The Corporation alleged that the defendants made adverse claims concerning Dr. Daniel Hippolyte Hunt’s vested account balance under the Corporation’s 403(b) Non-ERISA Volume Submitter Plan, which the Corporation administered.
The court previously granted the Corporation’s request to deposit the disputed funds into court and for preliminary injunctive relief. The Corporation later moved for discharge and dismissal under 28 U.S.C. § 2361. The defendants did not oppose that motion.
Report and Recommendation
Magistrate Judge Katharine H. Parker recommended granting the motion. The report explained that the parties had specified periods for filing objections and warned that failing to object could waive appellate review. No objections were filed.
Because there were no timely objections, Judge Rearden reviewed the report for clear error rather than conducting a fresh review of disputed issues. She found no clear error.
Ruling
Judge Rearden adopted the report and recommendation in full. The court granted the stakeholder’s motion for discharge and dismissal, ordered that the stakeholder be discharged and protected against further liability under 28 U.S.C. § 2361, and directed the Clerk to terminate the stakeholder as a party. The opinion does not describe how the account balance was ultimately distributed among the remaining claimants.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.