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)

Download PDF
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. \'. 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

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?