Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Regina B. Heisler et al

Filing 6

ORDER: IT IS ORDERED that the 3 motion is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff, having notified Defendants of the instant motion via e-mail, seeks authorization to deposit three hundred thirty thousand, seven hundred ninety dollars and ninety-three cents ($330,790.93) into the registry of the Court and DENIED AS PREMATURE in all other respects, as set forth in document. Signed by Judge Ivan L.R. Lemelle on 3/12/2018. (jls)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
CHARLES SCHWAB & CO., INC.

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 18-2522

REGINA B. HEISLER, ET AL.

SECTION “B”(3)
ORDER

Considering

Plaintiff’s

“Ex

Parte

Motion

for

Order

of

Interpleader” (Rec. Doc. 3),
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff,
having notified Defendants of the instant motion via e-mail, seeks
authorization to deposit three hundred thirty thousand, seven
hundred ninety dollars and ninety-three cents ($330,790.93) into
the registry of the Court (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a); LR 67.2) and
DENIED AS PREMATURE in all other respects. The other questions
raised by Plaintiff’s motion, such as whether interpleader is
appropriate and whether other proceedings should be enjoined, are
best addressed in a properly noticed motion that allows Defendants,
after they have been served and made an appearance, an opportunity
to be heard. See Rhoades v. Casey, 196 F.3d 592, 600-01 (5th Cir.
1999); see also 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure

1

§ 1714

(3d

ed.

2017)

(“The

decision

whether

interpleader

is

appropriate is made by the court, but only after all parties have
been

given

notice

and

an

opportunity

to

be

heard

on

the

question.”).
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 12th day of March, 2018.

___________________________________
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2