Aaron v. Atchison Topeka

• Court: District Court, E.D. California
• Decided: March 27, 2025
• Docket: 1:96-cv-06180
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 BURL J. AARON, et al., Case No. 1:96-cv-6180-KES-BAM 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING NON-PARTY BANK OF AMERICA, N.A.’S MOTION FOR ORDER 13 v. FOR DEPOSIT IN COURT 14 ATCHISON, TOPEKA AND SANTA FE (Doc. 87) RAILWAY COMPANY, 15 Defendants. 16

17 AND RELATED CASES

18 Currently before the Court is the motion of Non-Party Bank of America, N.A. (“BANA”) 19 seeking an order requiring BANA to deposit with the court the funds held at BANA in a court- 20 restricted account. The funds belong to Plaintiff Saina Ramirez, who cannot be located, and are 21 in BANA’s possession. (Doc. 807.) The matter was referred to the undersigned magistrate judge 22 in accordance with Local Rules 150(a) and 302(c)(6). 23 I. Relevant Background 24 On June 20, 2000, the Court issued an Order to Deposit Money (“Order”). (Doc. 599.) 25 The Order directed that funds totaling $682.46 be placed in a blocked account at BANA for 26 Plaintiff Saida Ramirez, who was a minor at that time. (Id.) 27 On June 19, 2001, Plaintiff’s Guardian and her counsel established a court-restricted 28 1 blocked account for Saida Ramirez, ending in -1496 (“Account”). (Doc. 807 at 3; Decl. of Carl 2 Monsen (“Monsen Decl.”) ¶ 5.) Funds could not be withdrawn without a written order of the 3 Court until the minor attained the age of eighteen years. (Doc. 599.) The Order provided that 4 “[w]hen said minor attains the age of eighteen years, said depository without further order of 5 Court is authorized and directed to pay by check or draft, upon proper demand, all monies, 6 including interest, hereby ordered to be deposited, directly to said minor.” (Id.) Saida Ramirez 7 attained the age of eighteen years in 2005. (Id.) She did not claim the funds once she reached the 8 age of eighteen. (Doc. 807 at 3.) 9 As a result of an administrative issue, the Account was closed on or around June 3, 2014 10 (the “Closed Date’). (Monsen Decl. ¶ 7.) On the Closed Date, the Account had a total balance 11 (including accrued interest) of $704.07 (the “Closed Funds”). (Id.) BANA remains in possession 12 of the Closed Funds, but BANA believes the funds belong to Saida Ramirez. (Id. ¶ 8.) BANA 13 contacted counsel who represented Saida Ramirez and her Guardian in this action, but BANA 14 was unable to reach Saida Ramirez or her Guardian with the contact information provided by 15 counsel. (Id. ¶ 9.) After conducting a search, BANA has been unable to locate Saida Ramirez or 16 her Guardian, and cannot appropriately distribute the funds. (Id. ¶ 10.) 17 On November 8, 2024, BANA filed the instant motion seeking an order for BANA to 18 deposit the full principal balance of the Closed Funds, plus interest, for a total of $882.88,1 with 19 the Court. No party responded to the motion. 20 II. Discussion 21 BANA filed this motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67. Rule 67 states:

22 If any part of the relief sought is a money judgment or the disposition of a sum of money or some other deliverable thing, a party—on notice to every other party 23 and by leave of court—may deposit with the court all or part of the money or thing, whether on not that party claims any of it. 24 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a).2 26 1 To provide interest to Saida Ramirez during the time the Account was closed, and through the probable 27 duration of the motion process, BANA applied an interest rate of 2.42% calculated from the Closed Date through November 30, 2024. (Doc. 807 at 4 n.1.) 28 2 BANA also seeks a court order for deposit of funds pursuant to Local Rule 150(a). That rule provides 1 “The core purpose of Rule 67 is to relieve a party who holds a contested fund from 2 responsibility for disbursement of that fund among those claiming some entitlement thereto.” 3 Alstom Caribe, Inc. v. George P. Reintjes Co., Inc., 484 F.3d 106, 113 (1st Cir. 2007). From this 4 purpose, “[i]t follows logically that a district court should not grant a Rule 67 motion unless the 5 question of entitlement is genuinely in dispute.” Id.; see also Hubbard v. Plaza Bonita, LP, No. 6 09-CV-1581 JLS (JMA), 2020 WL 3441027, at *1 (S.D. Cal. June 23, 2020) (“[T]o grant a Rule 7 67 motion, a court must find the funds in question to be genuinely ‘in dispute.’”). “Moreover, the 8 entitlement dispute must be live; that is, the dispute must be extant at the time the court is asked 9 to grant the Rule 67 motion.” Alstrom, 484 F.3d at 113. The Court has discretionary authority to 10 allow the deposit of funds pursuant to Rule 67. Lasheen v. Loomis Co., No. 2:01-cv-0227-KJM- 11 EFB, 2018 WL 4679305, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 28, 2018) (“The decision to allow the deposit of 12 property pursuant to Rule 67 is discretionary.”). 13 BANA asserts that the Closed Funds belong to Saida Ramirez, who reached the age of 14 eighteen years in 2005. BANA continues to hold the Closed Funds as required by the Order even 15 though Saida Ramirez has been eligible to receive them since 2005. BANA explains that because 16 it has not been able to locate Saida Ramirez or her Guardian, despite a diligent search, it is unable 17 to distribute the Closed Funds as required by the Order. For these reasons, BANA requests that 18 the Court grant the motion, allow BANA to deposit the full principal balance of the Closed 19 Funds, plus interest, with the Court, and upon making the deposit, BANA be fully and finally 20 released and discharged as a custodian of funds and from this matter. (Doc. 807 at 4.) 21 Having considered the motion, the Court finds that the requirements for deposit under 22 Rule 67 have not been met. This action is closed. The question of entitlement to the funds is not 23 live or in genuine dispute because, as BANA acknowledges, the funds belong to Saida Ramirez. 24 Accordingly, BANA’s motion will be denied without prejudice. 25 /// 26 /// 27 only that specific leave of court is required before making a deposit into the registry of the Court. L.R. 28 150(a). 1 III. Conclusion and Order 2 For the reasons stated, Non-Party Bank of America N.A.’s motion for order for deposit in 3 court is DENIED without prejudice. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5

6 Dated: March 27, 2025 /s/ Barbara A. McAuliffe _ UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 7

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28