UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

KIN INTERINSURANCE NETWORK CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS NO. 23-2320

JOHN COOMBS, ET AL. SECTION “R” (5)

ORDER

Plaintiff-in-interpleader, Kin Interinsurance Network (“Kin”), filed this action in July 2023 to determine the rights of claimants-in- interpleader, John and Amy Coombs and McClenny, Moseley & Associates, PLLC (“MMA”), to proceeds of a settlement between Kin and the Coombs concerning the Coombs’ insurance claims arising from Hurricane Ida damages.1 The Coombs were represented by MMA before and upon reaching the settlement agreement calling for Kin to tender the proceeds to the Coombs.2 MMA was subsequently suspended from practicing law in Louisiana because of “a pattern of misconduct” that included “a brazen, multi-faceted campaign to enrich themselves with ill-gotten contingency fees paid to them by unwitting insurance companies ostensibly on behalf of named insureds that they and their firm did not represent.” Franatovich v. Allied Tr. Ins. Co., No. 22-2552,

, at *1 (E.D. La. 2023).

1 R. Doc. 1. 2 Id. at 4. Kin filed this interpleader action for the Court to determine MMA’s entitlement to the proceeds of the settlement.3

Kin now moves for judgment of default against McClenny, Moseley & Associates, PLLC (“MMA”).4 On February 13, 2025, Chief Magistrate Judge Michael North issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant plaintiff’s motion and prohibit MMA

from asserting any claims, partially or in whole, against the $20,000.00 deposited in the registry of the Court.5 Defendants did not object to the R&R. Therefore, the Court reviews the R&R for clear error. See Douglass

v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n,

(5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds,

(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear

error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error. Accordingly, the Court adopts Chief Magistrate Michael North’s R&R as its opinion. The Court GRANTS plaintiff’s motion for judgment of

default against McClenny, Moseley & Associates, PLLC. The Court

3

at 5–6. 4 R. Doc. 30. 5 R. Doc. 34. ORDERS MMA to refrain from asserting any claims, partially or in whole, against the $20,000.00 deposited in the registry of the Court.

New Orleans, Louisiana, this _2!8t__ day of March, 2025. derek Varee_ SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE