Georgia Gulf Chamicals & Vinyls, LLC v. Gist Logistics, Inc. et al
Filing
103
OPINION AND ORDER scheduling a Teleconference for Wednesday, November 1, 2012 at 9:00 am to discuss the status of this litigation. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 10/4/12. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
GEORGIA GULF CHEMICALS &
VINYLS, LLC,
Plaintiff-Stakeholder,
v.
1:12-cv-1949-WSD
GIST LOGISTICS, INC., BAXTER
BAILEY & ASSOCIATES, et al.,
Defendant-Claimants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court following its June 25, July 20, and July 26,
2012, Orders requiring Georgia Gulf Chemicals & Vinyls, LLC’s (“Plaintiff” or
“Gulf”) to serve all Defendant-Claimants1 on or before August 10, 2012, with a
copy of its Complaint and the Court’s June 25, 2012, Order and for all parties, on
or before August 24, 2012, to file with the Court a pleading addressing: (1)
whether this is a proper interpleader action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335; (2) if so,
what amount of funds are in dispute; and, (3) whether Gulf should be dismissed
from this action as a disinterested stakeholder who is not subject to any claims by
the carriers.
1
Plaintiff has listed seventy-six (76) corporate entities and sixty (60) John Does as
Defendant-Claimants in this action.
Responses to the Court’s Order were filed by Defendant-Claimants BAH
Express, Inc. (“BAH”) [81], Tradewinds Logistics, Inc. (“Tradewinds”) [92],
Cotton Plant Transport, Inc. (“Cotton Plant”) [94],2 Phenix Transport, Inc.
(“Phenix”) [96],3 Christenson Transportation, Inc. (“Christenson”) [97], Stay
Loaded, Inc. (“Stay Loaded”) [98], and Mike’s Loading Service, Inc. (“Mike’s
Loading”) [99]. The Defendant-Claimants who have responded to the Court’s
Order collectively have claims against Gulf that total $21,425.00, a sum which
exceeds the $14,942.35 Gulf seeks to deposit into the Registry of the Court as the
limit of their liability in this interpleader action. There are an additional sixty-nine
(69) corporate entities who have not responded to the Court’s Order and who
potentially also have claims against Gulf.4 With the exception of BAH, all
Defendant-Claimants who have responded oppose interpleader and Gulf’s
dismissal from this action.
2
On August 2, 2012, Defendant-Claimant Cotton Plant also filed its Answer and
Crossclaim against Gulf and Gist Logistics, Inc. for services rendered in the
amount of $775.00 [95]. On August 23, 2012, Gulf answered Cotton Plant’s
counterclaim [101].
3
Defendant-Claimant Phenix’s pleading asserts that courts may impose costs and
attorney’s fees on a plaintiff-stakeholder who interpleads in bad faith and requests
reimbursement for its litigation expenses because Gulf’s interpleader claim is
frivolous. See Gelfgren v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 680 F.2d 79, 81 (9th Cir.
1982) (citing Murphy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 534 F.2d 1155, 1164 (5th Cir. 1976)).
4
On August 20, 2012, Defendant-Claimant Gist Logistics, Inc. filed a notice of
bankruptcy, invoking the automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code with
regard to efforts by Gulf to continue this action against it [100].
2
The Court has reviewed the submissions by the Defendant-Claimants and
concludes that a teleconference is appropriate to discuss the status of this litigation.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that a teleconference will be conducted by the
Court Wednesday, November 1, 2012, at 9:00 a.m. to discuss the status of this
litigation.
SO ORDERED this 4th day of October, 2012.
_________________________________________
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
3
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?