PFS Investments, Inc. et al v. Ortiz, Jr. et al

Filing 36

ORDER denying dft Ciprian Ortiz's 23 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting pltfs' 26 Cross Motion for Summary Judgment by Judge John C Coughenour.(RS)

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9

PFS INVESTMENTS INC., et al.,

10
Plaintiffs,
11

CASE NO. C13-1159-JCC
ORDER

v.
12
CIPRIAN ORTIZ JR., et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
This matter comes before the Court on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment

15

16 (Dkt. Nos. 23, 26). Having thoroughly considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record,
17 the Court finds oral argument unnecessary and hereby DENIES Defendant Ciprian Ortiz’s
18 motion (Dkt. No. 23) and GRANTS Plaintiffs’ cross-motion (Dkt. No. 26) for the reasons
19 explained herein.
20 I.

BACKGROUND

21

This is an interpleader action concerning the proceeds of a life annuity. Yoling Ortiz

22 (“Yoling”), the ex-wife of Ciprian Ortiz, Jr. (“Ciprian”), and her aunt, Ignacia Nicolas,
23 established the annuity account in 2002 as joint owners. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) Ms. Nicolas died in
24 2005. (Dkt. No. 1 at 3.) It is undisputed that Plaintiffs owe $148,361.00 under the annuity. (Dkt.
25 No. 23 at 2; Dkt. No. 26 at 2.) Both Yoling and Ciprian have claimed to be the rightful
26 beneficiary of the proceeds, although Defendant Ciprian disputes the evidentiary basis for

ORDER
PAGE - 1

1 Plaintiffs’ belief in Yoling’s claim. Plaintiffs filed this interpleader action seeking to submit the
2 $148,361 into the Court’s registry and thus discharge their obligations. (Dkt. No. 1 at 5.)
3 II.

DISCUSSION

4

A.

5

The purpose of an interpleader action is to resolve competing property claims and protect

Interpleader Action

6 the party holding the property from multiple claims and liability. See Premier Trust, Inc. v.
7 Duvall, 559 F.Supp.2d 1109, 1113 (D. Nev. 2008) (citing cases). “[I]n order to avail itself of the
8 interpleader remedy, a stakeholder must have a good faith belief that there are or may be
9 colorable competing claims to the stake.” Michelman v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887,
10 894 (9th Cir. 2012). This is not an onerous standard and the stakeholder is not responsible for
11 sorting out the merits of conflicting claims. See id. As Defendant recognizes, “interpleader has
12 very low bar . . . .” (Dkt. No. 23 at 9.)
Plaintiffs have easily cleared this low bar. Defendant’s arguments to the contrary appear

13

14 to rest primarily on the inadmissibility of Plaintiffs’ evidence. (Dkt. No. 32.) But Plaintiffs are
15 not required to prove by admissible evidence that Yoling has a colorable claim; they must merely
16 show a good-faith belief in the competing claim. The declarations submitted in support of their
17 motion do so. (Dkt. Nos. 27, 28.) Defendant’s other arguments are similarly meritless.
18

As disinterested stakeholders—which the Court concludes Plaintiffs are—Plaintiffs are

19 entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees, which will be determined upon application. See Trustees of
20 the Directors Guild of America-Producer Pension v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 426 (9th Cir. 2000);
21 First Interstate Bank N.A. v. United States, 891 F. Supp. 543, 548 (D. Or. 1995).
22 III.

CONCLUSION

23

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ciprian Ortiz’s motion for summary judgment is

24 DENIED (Dkt. No. 23) and Plaintiffs’ cross-motion is GRANTED (Dkt. No. 26).
25 //
26 //

ORDER
PAGE - 2

1

DATED this 29th day of May 2014.

2
3
4

A

5
6
7

John C. Coughenour
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

ORDER
PAGE - 3