JENSEN BAIRD GARDNER AND HENRY v. WIRTH et al

Filing 42

ORDER denying 22 Motion to Extend Time for Depositing Funds with the Court. By MAGISTRATE JUDGE JOHN H. RICH III. (jlg)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE

JENSEN BAIRD GARDNER
& HENRY,
Plaintiff
v.
JERZY WIRTH,
SKELTON, TAINTOR & ABBOTT, and
STEPHEN B. WADE, ESQ.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 2:12-cv-296-JAW

ORDER ON REQUEST OF SKELTON, TAINTOR & ABBORT TO DELAY DEPOSIT OF
FUNDS

In response to my decision dated December 28, 2012, in this interpleader action (ECF
No. 21), defendant Skelton, Taintor & Abbot has filed a “supplemental memorandum” and
various affidavits, setting out facts that have developed since the date when the plaintiff’s motion
for leave to deposit the funds at issue was placed under advisement. In my December 28
decision, I allowed Skelton, Taintor & Abbot 10 business days in which to provide current
information about the status of an underlying state-court action and any authority supporting its
requests that, the plaintiff’s request for leave to deposit funds with the court having been granted,
the court order the posting of a bond in lieu of deposit or delay the deposit to allow Skelton,
Taintor & Abbott to perfect its interest in the funds to be deposited. Memorandum Decision on
Motion for Leave to Deposit Funds (ECF No. 21) at 6.
Skelton, Taintor & Abbott has now provided that information and apparently abandoned
its alternative request that the plaintiff be ordered to post a bond in lieu of depositing the funds at

1

issue with the court. Supplemental Memorandum Relating to the Deposit of Funds with the
Court (ECF No. 22). Its request for delay in the depositing of the funds is opposed by both the
plaintiff and the remaining defendant, Jerzy Wirth, who appears pro se. ECF Nos. 23 & 30.
I. Additional Facts
A judgment dated December 20, 2012, was docketed in the underlying state-court action
on December 26, 2012. Affidavit of Stephen B. Wade (“Wade Aff.”) (ECF No. 22-1) ¶ 3. The
office of the clerk of the Superior Court, Kennebec County, failed to enter the judgment on the
docket. Affidavit of James E. Belleau (ECF No. 25) ¶ 6. The judgment was entered on the
docket on January 15, 2013. Id. ¶ 7. The appeal period expired on February 5, 2013, after which
Skelton, Taintor & Abbot planned promptly to obtain a writ of execution, and record that writ
with the Maine secretary of state. Id. ¶¶ 8-9; Wade Aff. ¶¶ 7, 9.
Defendant Wirth filed a UCC-1 form with the Maine Secretary of State’s office on or
about January 16, 2013, seeking to perfect a security interest in the funds at issue. Supplemental
Affidavit of James E. Belleau (ECF No. 29) ¶ 4. He has also filed a notice of appeal and a
motion for relief from judgment in the underlying state-court action, although he is not a party to
that action. Supplemental Affidavit of Stephen B. Wade Relating [] to Motion to Extend Time
for Depositing Funds with the Court to Allow Skelton, Taintor & Abbott to Preserve and Perfect
Its Interest (ECF No. 31) ¶¶ 4-5.
None of these facts is disputed.
II. Discussion
Skelton, Taintor & Abbott offers no authority and little argument in support of its request
for further delay. Indeed, as the plaintiff points out, Plaintiff’s Memorandum in Opposition to
the Motion of Stephen B. Wade, Esq. and Skelton, Taintor & Abbott to Extend Time for

2

Depositing Funds with the Court to Allow Them to Preserve and Perfect Their Interest (ECF No.
23) at 3, the writ of execution, whenever the law firm is able to procure it from the Maine
Superior Court (Kennebec County), will place a lien on the property of Geoff J. Hasler, but
Hasler has already disclaimed any interest in the funds at issue here. Declaration of Michael A.
Nelson, Esq. (ECF No. 23-1) ¶ 2 & Exh. C thereto. Thus, there does not appear to be any
advantage to the law firm in delaying the deposit of the funds with this court.
In addition, this court will rule on any and all claims to the funds, once they are
deposited, regardless of where the money was when any particular claimant’s interest was
perfected. I see no reason to delay the progress of that adjudication any longer.
III. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the request of Skelton, Taintor & Abbott that the court order a
further delay by the plaintiff in the deposit of the funds at issue with the court is DENIED.
Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry shall deposit the funds with the court forthwith.

NOTICE
In accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(a), a party may serve and file
an objection to this order within fourteen (14) days after being served with a copy thereof.
Failure to file a timely objection shall constitute a waiver of the right to review by the
district court and to any further appeal of this order.
Dated this 13th day of February, 2013.
/s/ John H. Rich III
John H. Rich III
United States Magistrate Judge

3