Manufacturers and Traders Trust Company v. Del Conca USA, Inc. et al

Filing 22

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge George Jarrod Hazel on 7/25/2017. (aos, Deputy Clerk)

IN Tim UNITED STATES [)ISTRICT COURT
FOR TIlE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
SOl/them Dh';s;ol/

MANUFACTURERS & TRADERS
TRUST COMPANY,
I'laintiff,

*
*
Case No.: G.IH-16-33.t6

\'.

*
DEL CONCA USA, INC. ef aI.,

*
Defendants.

*
*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

MEMORANDUM OPINION
In this interpleader action. Plaintiff Manulacturers & Traders Trust Company ("M&T')
brings suit against Delendants Del Conca USA. Inc. ("Del Conca") and Nathaniel L. Akers.
requesting that the Court authorize M&T to deposit $302.662.69 in wired funds ("the Funds")
into the Registry of the Court. dismiss M&T Irom the action. discharge M&T Irom further
liability relating to the Funds. and award M&T the attorneys' Ices and costs associated with this
case. lOCI'NO.1. Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs Motion li)r Entry of an Order of
Interpleader and Other RelieC Eel' No. 16. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (I). Md.
2016). For the li)lIowing reasons. Plaintiffs

Motion li}r Entry of Interpleader is granted. in part.

and denied. in part. Once the Funds have been deposited with the Registry of the Court. Plaintiff
M&T shall be dismisscd. discharged from liability. and awarded $9.092.60 in attorneys' Ices and
costs Irom the deposited funds. The remaining parties shall be realigned with Del Conca as
PlaintilTand Nathaniel Akers as Delendant.'

1 Defendant
Del Conca"s Motion for Default Judgment. ECF No. 17. shall be addressed
be issued allcr the Funds have been deposited in the Registry of the COUl1.

in an Order and Opinion to

I.

BACKGROUND
According

to the Complaint.

Plaintiff M&T is a Ncw York statc chartered bank

an office in Baltimore.

corporation

organized

Tennessee.

!d ~ 2. Nathaniel Akers is an individual who resides and is domiciled

lleights.

Maryland.

Greenland

!d

Enterprises.

intcrpleader

Maryland.

lOCI' No. I

'11.

maintaining

under the laws of Tennessee

'13. Akers

Defendant Del Conca is a

and maintains an ortice in Loudon.
in Capitol

does or has done business under the registcred trade name

!d M&T currently holds $302.662.69 in wired funds. and has tiled this

action to determine

which of the two Defendants

is entitled to the Funds.

On or about February 5. 2016. Akers opened a business checking account with M&T.
lOCI' NO.1

'i 10; .Iee ECF

No. 16-2'; 4. On or about September 6. 2016. Del Conca initiated a

wire transfer of $302.662.69 from an account Del Conca maintained

with Banca Monte Dd

n 11-13.

Paschi Di Siena ("BMPS")

to an account Akers held at M&T. ECF No. I

Shortly alier

the Funds were transferred

and credited to the M&T account. Del Conca contacted M&T.

asserting that the transfer was procured by fraud. and requesting that M&T return the Funds to
the BMPS account. III
account. III

'i

'i

14. In response. M&T did not return the Funds. but instead Iroze the

15. M&T made repeated efforts to contact Akers. its customer. to determine

whcther Akers would contest Del Conca's claim to the Funds or allow M&T to return the Funds
to Del Conca. hut M&T was unsuccesstiJi
contractually

in reaching him. !d ,; 1S. M&T maintains that it is

and legally obligated to retain the Funds until the dispute is resolved. !d 'i'116. 19.

M&T initiated this interpleader

action against Del Conca and Akers on October 5. 2016.

ECF No. I.~ Through etliHts to serve Akers personally.

~ Prior

10

M&T discovered

that Akers \\'as

the tiling in this Court. on September 29. 2016. Del Conca filed an action against M&T in the Supreme

Court of New York. New York County. Del ('011('(/ USA. Int'. \', .\1/;',\'. & Traders '!i'us! ('0 .. No: 655166.'2016 .. )'ee
EeF No. 16-3. Akers is nol a party to thai action. 1£1. Online case information from the New York Supreme COllrt
Records Ol1~Lille Library indicates that no action has been taken in the case since March 30. 2017. but counsel from

2

homeless. See ECF NO.6-I at 2-4 ..' M&T also learned that the personal address and business
address on lile i(lr Akers were actually two separate churches \\'here Akers periodically resided.
See ill. M&T"s private process server was unable to locate Akers despite several attempts. Id

M&T filed a Motion I(lr Alternative Service as to Defendant Akers. ECF NO.6. which the Court
granted on December 14. 2016. ECF NO.8. M&T subsequently served Akers by iirst class U.S.
mail. ECF No. 15 ~ 4. and according to M&T. on or about January 6. 2017. Akers callcd
Plaintiffs counsel. conlirming that he had received the summons. and inquiring about the matter.
ill.

~i
6.
In the instant Complaint. M&T requests that the Court restrain and enjoin the Defendants

from instituting any action against M&T I(lr recovery of the Funds. authorize M&T to deposit
the Funds into the Registry of the Court. dismiss M&T ihllll suit and discharge M&T from any
further liability with respect to the Funds. award M&T the attorneys' fees and costs associated
with this action. and require the Defendants to interplead as to the Funds. Defendant Del Conca
has answered the Complaint. ECF No.

J

I. Akers was served on January 3. 2017. and an aJ1S\\'Cr

was due by January 24.2017. ECF No. 17. Akers has not answered the Complaint or entered an
appearance in this matter. Del Conea has now moved I(lr Del:llIlt Judgment against Akers. ECF
No. 17. M&T opposes Default Judgment against Akers as premature. ECI' No. J 9 at 2. The time
for Akers to respond has expired. and the Clerk shall he direeted to enter del:llilt against Akers.
However. dei:llllt judgment against Akers cannot he resolved in the current posture. and Del
Conea's Motion for Dei:llllt Judgment willtherel(lre he addressed in i()[(heoming proceedings.
See IVells FlIIXII flank. N.il. \'. faslhal/l.

No. CV DKC 16-0386. 2016 WL 2625281. at * 5 (D.

Del Conca has tiled several stipulations for extensions oftimc for Defendant M&T to respond to Del Coneaos
complaint. See hnp://iapps.co1ll1s.statc .n)' .lIs/iscroll/SQLData.jsp?lndexNo=655
166-20 16&Submit2=Scarch (last
yisited July 14.2017). Del Conca allests that the case has been deferred. lOCI'No. 17-2'; 4.
, Pin cites 10 doculllents filed on the C01ll1"S electronic tiling system (CMlECF) refer to the page numbers generated
by that system.

Md. May 9. 2(16) (noting that interpleader
detCndant could not "be resolved
parties as adversaries

in the present posture:'

and directing

further proceedings):

I: 16-CV -1094. 2017 WL 2834459,
plaintilrs

II.

and therefore realigning

I'l'lIdenliallns.

('0,

at *3 (M,D, I'a. June 29. 2(17) (denying

motion I()r default judgment

such relief is more appropriately

defendant" s motion I()r delault against other

against one detCndant.

the remaining

ojAlII, \'. Whit!!. No.
interpleader

noting that ..the Court limb that

sought in the second stage of this proceeding

... ").

STANDARD OF REVIEW
"Interpleader

is a proeedural

single action joining

t\\'o or more adverse claimants

lIarljiml r. Arcade hrliles.
"to protect the stakeholder
obligation

of determining

interpleader
permittcd

to \\'ithdra\\'

28 U.s.c.
claims involving
citizenship:'

to bring a

to a single fund:' SeclIrily Ins. Co. o(

\\'hieh claimant

inconsistent

judgments

and to relieve it of the

is entitled to the fund," Iii. In interpleader

claims. the

\\'ill "admit liability. deposit the fund "ith the court. and be

from the proceedings,"

Wells Fargo Bal1k. N.A. \'. Easlha/ll. No. CV DKC

at *3 (D, Md. May 9. 2(16) (citing CMFG Liji: Il1s. Co. \'. Schell.

2014 WL 7365802,

at *2 (D, Md. Dec. 22, 2(14)).

~ 1335(a) "grants the district courts original jurisdiction

over intcrplcader

at least $500.00 in funds or property and at least t\\'o claimants

of divcrse

Wells Fargo /Jank. N.A. \'. EasllwlII. No, CV DKC 16-0386. 2016 WL 2625281. at

*3 (D, Md. May 9.2(16)
interpleader

Irom multiple.

WL 2625281.

No. GJII-13-3032.

stakeholder

Inc.. 40 F. App'x 767. 769 (4th Cir. 2(02). The device is designed

plaintiff typically

16-0386,2016

device that allo\\'s a disinterested

(citing 28 U.s.c.

action undcr Section

~ 1335(a).

28 U.s.c.

~ 2361 providcs that in an

1335:

tA] district court may issuc its process I()r all claimants and enter
its order restraining
them from instituting or prosecuting
any
proceeding
in any State or United States court affecting the

4

property ... invol,'ed
of the court. ...

in the interpleader

action until limher order

Such district court shall hear and determine the case. and may
discharge the plaintiff from further liability. make the injunction
permancnt.
and make all appropriate
orders to enl()("ce its
judgment.
28 U.s.c.

~ 2361.

An interpleader

action generally

proceeds

in two stages. fast/will.

2016 WI. 2625281.

at

*2 (D. Md. May 9. 2(16) (citing 7 Charles A. Wright. Arthur R. Miller. & Mary K. Kane.
Federal Practice and Procedure
(Juar. Co .. 672 F.Supp.2d

stakeholder

has properly

Ulli/!!dS/a/!!s

interpleader

~ 1714 (3d ed. 200 I): Rapid S!!/II!!JII!!l1/s. !.Ill. ". U.S. Fill. &

714. 717 (D. Md. 2009)). Initially. the COlJli determines
invoked interpleader'"

Eas/halll. 2016 WI. 2625281.

,'. Hi~h T!!ch. ['rod.l' .. file.. 497 F.3d 637. 641 (6th Cir. 2(07)).

rests upon whether the stakeholder

single fund'" ill.. and the Court considers

"legitimately

whether:

..( 1) it has jurisdiction

single fund is at issue: (3) there are adverse claimants
threatened

with multiple

interpleader'"
2133340.
consistent

liability: and (5) equitable

Id: see also AI!!/ro. Uti' IllS.

concerns

with 28 U.S.c.

respect to the deposited
or prOceeding

the

at *2 (citing
The propriety of

litigation over a

over the suit: (2) a

to the fund: (4) the stakcholder

is actually

[would] prevent the usc of

I'-illes. No. CIV. WDQ-I 0-2809.2011

at *2 (D. Md. May 25. 2011). If the Court determines

interpleader

WI.

to be proper.

~ 2361. ,.the Court may direct the funds plus interest to be deposited

with the Clerk, dismiss the stakeholder

2625281.

C'II. ".

fears multiple

"whether

with prejudice

and discharge

funds. and prohibit the claimants

against the stakeholder

regarding

it Irom all liability \\ith

Irom initiating or pursuing any action

the Iproperty at issue j:' Eall/wlII.

at *2.

5

2016 WI.

During thc sccond stagc of an interpleadcr action. thc Court issues a schcduling ordcr and
..thc casc continucs betwecn thc claimants to detcrminc thcir rcspcctivc rights'"

1"(/.1'//)([111.

2016

WL 2625281. at *2. (citing Rhoode.l' \'. C(/.I'ey. 196 FJd 592. (00). Thc claimants cngagc in thc
"normal litigation processes. including pleading. discovery. motions. and triaL" lei. (citing lIigh
Tech.. 497 F.3d at 641 ).

III.

ANALYSIS
A. Propriety

of Interpleader

Applying thc interpleader standard set !(mh abovc. M&T has satisticd all thc
rcquircments for invoking intcrplcadcr. Jurisdiction is proper undcr 28 U.S.c. ~ 1335 bccause
thc amount in controvcrsy cxcceds $500.00 and the Dcfcndants are of divcrse citizcnship. as Del
Conca USA. Inc. is a corporation incorporatcd under thc laws ofTcnncsscc.

see 28 lJ.S.c. ~

1332 ("a corporation shall be deemed to bc a citizcn of cvcry Statc and !(1I"cign
statc by which it
has bcen incorporatcd") and Akers is an individual domicilcd in Maryland. A singlc fund is at
issuc. namcly. thc Funds in the amount of $302.662.69 transfcrrcd by DcI Conca to M&T on
Septcmbcr 6. 2016. See ECF No. I ~'II 0-21.
Furthcr. Dcl Conca and Akers arc "advcrsc claimants" to thc Funds. This is truc c\'cn
though Akcrs has not cxprcssly madc a claim to the till1ds. bccause Plainti!Tnccd only shO\\.thc
cxistcncc of a potential claimant to thc funds to satisfy this clemen!. See 28 lJ.S.c. ~ 1335 ("Two
or morc advcrsc claimants ... arc claiming or may claim to bc cntitled to such money or
property.");

1"(/.1'//)([111.

2016 WL 2625281 at *3 ("Section 1335 cxpressly providcs that an

interpleader action is appropriatc to resolvc potcntial claims."): Kri.l'hn(/ \'. Co/g(/Ie 1'(//lIIoliw
Co.. No. 90 CIY. 4116 (CSII). 1991 WL 125186. at *2 (S.D.N.Y . .tuly 2.1991) ("lAJdverse
claims necd not havc actually bccn asserted 1(11" interpleadcr action to bc propcr. Thc language
an

6

of both Rule 22 and 28 U.S.c.
of prospective
prospective

claims.").

~ 1335 allow fiJr the invocation

"[Clourts

should not hesitate to allow interpleader

2016 WL 2625281

Miller. & Mary K. Kane. Federall'ractice
the Funds are hcld in Akers'

exposing

receiving

and Procedure

~ 1707 (3d cd. 2001

adverse claimant.

liability to its customer

liable lill' damages

to Akers'

potential

if it incorrectly

and impartial
1'.

with liability if it is obligated

disburses"

the remaining

preventing

stakeholder

that plaintiff was "a disinterested

which claimant

to determine

1'1111'.1'.

No. CIV. WDQ-I 0-2809.
be

the use of interpleader.

M&T attests that it is

to the Funds that makes no claim to the funds. Ill/sllIle
2015 WL 500171. at *4 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4. 2(15) (noting

stakeholder

that does not dispute the amount O\\'edundcr

policy. and is timely asserting.

the requirements

plaintiff"may

the Funds. S'ee ECF No. 16-3.

ii)r an interpleader

to be appropriate).

aetion have been met. Therefilre.

Court directs M&T to deposit with the Registry of the Court the $306.662.69
interest that has accrued since September

the

in good lilith. that it is unable to determine

is legally entitled to such funds" and finding interpleader

Accordingly.

who is entitled to

funds). Indeed. M&T has already

by Del Conca regarding

concerns

Ellel!. No. 2:14CV372.

rclevant insurance

~iI
I

See ECF No. 16-2

at *3 (D. Md. May 25. 2(11) (noting that interpleading

Finally. therc arc no equitable

Co.

Here. because

claim. Del Conca asserts that the funds properly belong to

been the subject of a lawsuit commenced

a disinterested

».

Akers."').

the funds and decides incorrectly.. See Me/ro. Lit'e 111.1'. Co. \'.
.
2011 WL 2133340.

level

at *3 (citing 7 Charles A. Wright. Arthur R.

aceount. he is a potential

it. Thus. M&T may be threatened

IllS.

even when

the consent of Akers. M&T cannot return the Funds to Del Conca without

itself to potential
In addition

Lite

lor thc possibility

claims are involved as long as thcy do not fall below any mcaningfulthreshold

ofsubstantiality."'I"lI.I'/illI/II.

("Without

of interpleader

the

in Funds. plus

6. 2016. Upon receipt of the Funds. the Court shall

7

dismiss M&T from the action. discharge
enjoin Defendants
affecting

Irom instituting

the funds involved

remaining

M&T from further liability relating to the funds. and

or prosccuting

in this intcrplcader

any procecdings

in state or ICderal court

action. pursuant to 28 U.S.c.

parties in this action shall be realigned

~ 2361. The

with Dcl Conca as I'lainti ITand Akers as

DeICndant.
Fees and Costs for M&T

B. Attorneys'

"lIlt is within the discretion
rcasonable

attorneys'

fcc out of the deposited

CY DKC 16-0386.2016
ot"Norlh Alllerica.

of the court to award the lintcrpleaderl

WI. 2625281.

fund:'

at *4 (D. Md. May 9.2016)

reasonable

attorneys'

is considercd

disputc in a singlc court:'
Slollehridge

WI. 319521. at * I (D. Md. Jan. 23.
to award the stakeholder

fces. out of the deposited

fund."). The rationale

granting attorneys'

appropriate

fees to thc stakeholdcr

only when the intcrpleadcr

Charles Alan Wright et al.. Federal I'raetice and Procedure

interpleader

at *2. "By its very nature Ian interpleader

Attorncys'

ICcs

"as a mcre
the fund in court.

2017 WI. 319521. at * 1 (citing 7

fees to a stakeholder

it should also be modest." Jericho.
fceJ is ofa relatively

8

of the

~ 1719 (3d ed. 200 I)).

"I wlhen an award of costs and attorneys'
action is equitable.

plaintifTacts

liability. has deposited

and has asked to be relieved of any further liability." Jericho.

successfill

is that "Iblecause

is oncn justificd.

89 F. Supp. 3d 622. 627 (0.1\..1. 2(15)).

which means that thc party has admitted

Additionally.

its costs.

to be helping multiple parties to an cfficicnt rcsolution

14e IllS. Co. \'. Kissillger.

and costs arc. howcver.
stakcholder.

(citing COPI'age \'. Ills. Co.

263 F.Supp. 98. 100 (D. Md. 1967)): see also Balik ot"AIII.. N.A. \'. Jericho

2017) (noting that "Itlhe Court retains broad discretion

the stakeholdcr

a

Wells Fargo Balik. N.A. \'. lo'm/lllIlII. No.

Baplisl Church I'v/illislries. IlIc.. No. I'X 15-02953.2017

including

costs including

in a

2017 WI. 319521.

small amount simply to

compensate

for initiating

Ill. (citing Faher Co. \'. OmIrick. 310 F.2d 462. 467

the proceedings."'

(5th Cir. 1962». In general. a stakeholder's
becausc thc interpleader
responsibility."'

Ill. (citing Le\l'is

I'.

Allal7lic Research ColjJ.. No. 98-0070-11.1999

An award of attorneys'

of the petition lor interpleader.

the preparation

of the order discharging

have taken steps to assuage its concern regarding
Funds without initiating
and money in litigation."
an action 'prematurcly
multiple

an interpleader

limited to the

funds with thc court. and

Id.

have. in recent interpleader

fees entirely. see EasllwlII. 2016 WL 262528\

WL 701383.

fccs should be "properly

the deposit of the contested

the stakeholder."'

Indeed. courts in this jurisdiction
attorneys'

fees and costs is limited.

process "does not usually involve any great amount of skill. labor or

at *7 (W.D. Va. Aug. 30.1999».
preparation

ability to recoup attorneys'

cases. denied rcquests

at *5 (noting that

"r p ]laintilT

multiple potential claimants

action that required

live additional

could

to the Disputed

parties to spend time

and that "courts often deny costs and fees when an interpleader
or without suflicient

vexation. '''). or made a substantial

WL 319521. at *3 (cutting attorneys'

basis for believing

fi)r

that it will be subjected

brings
to

to the award request. see Jericho. 2017

deduction

fees that were "spent on matters outside the interpleader

action itself').
Here. while M&T is an impartial stakeholder.
been met. it does appear that resolution
initiating

and the requirements

short of interpleader

of interpleader

may have been possible.

this action. M&T made repeated efforts to contact Akers to determine

would contest the allegations

of fraud. claim entitlement

Funds to Del Conca and BMPS. Akers never responded

agreement

Prior to

whether he

to the Funds. or permit the return of the
to M&T. nor did he make a claim to

these Funds. Thus. it would secm that the only likely claimant
accept an offered indemnilication

have

was Del Conca. Rather than

Irom Dcl Conca. or take other steps to assuage their

9

concerns

ofconllicting

interpleader

liabilities.

see EeF No. 21 at 10-11. M&T chose to commence

action. It would be unjust to require Del Conca. who by all accounts

the victim of fraud. to bear the full costs ofPlaintilrs
their own. See Coppoge \'. lns. Co. o(N.
"require

the claimants

...

to Ithe interpleader]

0550A. 200.+ WL 2809315.

..[t]he plaintilTbank

themselves

,\focRoe. No. Clv.A.
plaintifTbank's

request

to be relieved of the burden of holding surplus funds" and
it to risk nor

that it incur legal fees and costs.").

number of hours reasonably
U.S . .+24. 433 (1983): see

expended.
01.1'0

request of$18.000.00.

See ECI' No. 16 at.+.

the proper amount of a Ice award is the "lodestar,"
multiplied

by a reasonable

or ..the

hourly rate," llensle)'. 461

RIIIIlCreek Cool Soles. lnc. \'. Coper/on. 31 F.3d 169. 174 (4th

Cir. 1(94). The party seeking an award of attorney's
to an award and documenting

fees "bears the burden of establishing

the appropriate

hours expended

and hourly rates,"

U.S. at 437. The court shall adjust the number of hours to del etc duplicati\'e

hours. and the number of hours must be reasonable

"billing judgment."

0.+-

action purely on the basis

could have elected other options that would not have exposed

The starting point for determining

unrelated

I'.

at *2 (Mass. Super. Nov. 17.200'+) (denying

With this in mind. the Court turns to M&T's

Hemle)'.461

counsel would be

or federal law" and "services

Woshing/OI; .1111/1101 Bonk. FA.

and not necessitYl.]

would have neeessitated

entitlement

party'sl

Ices. noting that ..the plaintiff bank liled an interpleader

of cOI1\'eniencel.]

to

(D. Md. 1(67) (noting that to

by their eounsel should be borne by Ithe interpleader]

and not by the injured persons"):

for attorneys'

263 F. Supp. 98.101

by the law of Maryland

appears to be

fees in this matter. in addition

also to bear the fee of [thc interpleading

lII~just. and is not required or warranted
rendered

Alii ..

attorneys'

this

and represent

or

the product of

RIIIIlCreek Cool Soles. 31 F.3d at 175 (citing Hensle)' . .+61 U.S. at 437). And

in the casc of inter pIca del' actions. "It]he ultimate decision

10

to grant reimbursement

for those fees

and costs remains in the Court's discretion:' Life 1m. CII. orlhl'S1l'. \'. CIIII'JIlall. NO.3: 14-CV799-JAG. 2015 WL 1469155. at *2 (E.D. Va. Mar. 30.2(15)
l'ipl'fil/l'I'S Nal. I'l'lIsillll

(citing Trustl'l'S 1I(l'luJllhl'l's &

Fund \'. S'll'lIgUI'. 251 F. App'x 155. 156 (4th Cir. 2(07)).

The hourly rates requested by M&T fall within the range of presumptively reasonable
rates identilied in Appendix B of the Loeal Rules (D. Md. July I. 2(16).4 however. the Court
will. in its discretion. make some adjustments to the hours billed. Using the guiding principlc that
fees shall only be awarded for tasks related to the intcrpleader action itsell: the Court tinds that
no fecs shall be awarded lilr September 2016. as it appears that time was spent dclending a
scparate matter: but tinds that M&T is entitled to $27X0.80 lilr October 2016: $726.20 fill'
November 2016: $2765.40 lilr December 2016: $250.60 lilr January 2017: and $2569.60 far
February 2017 -

lill' a total amount of $9.092.60. To the extent M&T seeks fees lilr litigating

the New York state case. actions taken in M&T's own sell~interest are not properly recoverable
as attorneys' fces. Sl'l'. l'.g .. Fid IJrokl'l'lIgl' .';l'I'\'S. I.LC \'. Caro. No. 10 CIV. 5893 BSJ RLE.
2011 WL 4801523. at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. II. 2(11) (noting Ihat "[blecause the proceedings
betiJre the Supreme Court of the State of New York were not related to the bringing of the
interpleader action. Iplaintiff! is not entitled to at1orncys' fees tiJr thcse costs."): f!l'aring \'.
Mil1l1l'sIIIa Lik Ills. CII.. 33 F. Supp. 3d 1035. 1043 (N.D. Iowa 2014). a{l'd. 793 F.3d 888 (8th

Cir. 2(15) (denying rcquesililr attorneys' fees where company brought interpleader action in its
own scll~interest).
Accepting this calculation proposed by Del Conca. and considering that this case was not
particularly complicated and may have been avoidablc. the Court believes $9.092.60 to be a fair

~ Lawyers admitted to the bar for less than five (5) years: S 150-115. Lawyers admitted to the bar fix the (5) 10 eight
(8) years: S 165-300. l.awyers admitted to the bar for nine (9) to fOlll1een ( 14) years: S215-350. La\\ yers adrn itted 10
the bar for tificcn (15) to nineteen (19) years: 5275-425.

Lawyers admitted to the bar for twelll)' (20) :'cars or more:

5300-475. Paralegals and law clerks: 595-150. 1.0C. R. app. Il (D. Md. July I. 2016).

II

and appropriate sum. It is also consistent with awards givcn in similar circumstances. See. e.g ..
Cilihallk.

N.A. \'. Jericho

BaJJlisl Church Millislries.

IlIc .. No. PX 16-01697. 2017 WL 2132033.

at *7 (D. Md. May 17.2017) (rcdueing Citibank's request li'om $27.574.80 and granting
$13.044.16 in attorneys' fees and costs): Melro. UFe Ills. CO.

I'.

Sallche::. NO.2: 16-CV -00787-

fvICE-AC. 2017 WL 2081794. at *2 (E.O. Cal. May 15.2017) (Iinding

Stllll

of$5.801 34

reasonable for "initiating this interpleader action. effecting service of process. preparing the
instant motion to dismiss/discharge. and otherwise participating in this litigation."):
7i'a/7Samerica Li/i! 1/7S.Co. \'. Sallome.

No. 3:14CV624. 2015 WI. 222184. at *3 (ED. Va . .Jan.

14.2015) (awarding $11.617.00): DusseidO/l) \'. flo. 4

r. Supp.

3d 1069. 1071 (S.D. Iowa 2014)

(reducing request li'OIn$15.507.82 and awarding $3.506.00): Fie/. Nal. Tille Co. \'.
Bus. Admill .. No. 2:13-CV-02030-K.JM-AC.

u.s. Small

2014 WL 6390275. at *5 (E.D. Cal. Nov. 13.2014)

(awarding $11.500): Wells Fargo Balik. Nal. Ass'll \'. I'ACCAR

Fill. CO/I)" No. 108CV-

00904A WI-SMS. 2009 WL 211386. at *4 (E.D. Cal. .Jan. 28. 2009) (awarding $5575.55).
Accordingly. an amount of$9.092.60

shall be disbursed from the Registry of the Court to M&T

for attorneys' Ices. once the Funds have been deposited.
IV.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons. Plaintiffs Motion for Entry of Interpleader is granted. in part.
and denied. in pm1. A separate Order shall issue.

Date: .Julv

'2-<7,

A-;f-

2017

"

GEORGE .J. hAZEL
United States District .Judge

12