JENSEN BAIRD GARDNER AND HENRY v. WIRTH et al

Filing 55

ORDER granting 52 Motion to Discharge Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry as Stakeholder. By JUDGE JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR. (MFS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MAINE
JENSEN BAIRD GARDNER
& HENRY,
Plaintiff,
v.
JERZY WIRTH, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:12-cv-00296-JAW

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISCHARGE
On September 27, 2012, Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry (Jensen Baird) filed
an interpleader action, alleging that it had money in its custody in the amount of
$205,223.27 against which there were two or more claimants, Jerzy Wirth and
Stephen Wade of the law firm of Skelton, Taintor & Abbott (collectively Skelton
Taintor).

Compl. ¶ (ECF No. 1).

With the Complaint, Jensen Baird moved to

deposit this money into the Court. Mot. for Leave to Deposit Funds with the Court
(ECF No. 3). On December 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge granted Jensen Baird’s
motion to deposit. Memorandum Decision on Mot. for Leave to Deposit Funds (ECF
No. 21). After some delay caused by a side issue, the Magistrate Judge on February
13, 2013 ordered that Jensen Baird deposit the funds forthwith. Order on Req. of
Skelton, Taintor & Abbo[t]t to Delay Deposit of Funds (ECF No. 42). In accordance
with the Order, Jensen Baird duly deposited $205,223.27 with the Court on
February 14, 2013.

Although at one point Skelton Taintor filed a counterclaim against Jensen
Baird, it later moved to dismiss the Counterclaim and on April 19, 2013, the Court
dismissed the Counterclaim with prejudice. Skelton, Taintor & Abbott and Stephen
B. Wade, Esq.’s Mot. for Dismissal of Their Countercl. Against Jensen Baird
Gardner & Henry (ECF No. 48); Order Granting Mot. to Dismiss Countercl. Against
Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry (ECF No. 51). On April 19, 2013, Jensen Baird
moved for an order discharging it as the stakeholder for the disputed funds. Mot. to
Discharge Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry as Stakeholder (ECF No. 52). Neither
Mr. Wirth nor Skelton Taintor responded to the Jensen Baird motion.
To be entitled to a discharge in an interpleader action, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that it has complied with the statutory and rule requirements for an
interpleader action. See MetLife Investors USA Ins. Co. v. Zeidman, 734 F. Supp. 2d
304, 314-15 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1335); FED. R. CIV. P. 22. Those
requirements are: (1) that the plaintiff possess a single fund of a value greater than
$500, (2) that the plaintiff alleges a real and reasonable fear of double liability or
vexatious, conflicting claims, and (3) that the plaintiff deposit or be depositing the
fund with the court. Id. A fourth requirement for discharge is that “the stakeholder
be disinterested.” 7 CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & MARY KAY KANE,
FEDERAL PRACTICE

AND

PROCEDURE § 1714 (3d ed. 2001). Here, Jensen Baird is

entitled to be discharged because it has satisfied all the statutory and rule
requirements and there is no claim that it has any interest in the disposition of the

2

fund. See GE Capital Assurance v. Van Norman, 209 F. Supp. 2d 668, 670 (S.D. Tx.
2002); Southtrust Bank, N.A. v. Wilson, 971 S. Supp. 539, 542 (M.D. Fl. 1997).
The Court GRANTS Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry’s Motion to Discharge
Jensen Baird Gardner & Henry as Stakeholder (ECF No. 52).
SO ORDERED.
/s/ John A. Woodcock, Jr.
JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated this 15th day of May, 2013

3