Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Meeel Inc

W.D. Washington

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Meeel Inc

DecidedFebruary 24, 2020

Docket2:19-cv-01857

StatusUnknown

This text of Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Meeel Inc (Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Meeel Inc) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Washington primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Meeel Inc, (W.D. Wash. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. C19-1857 TSZ 9 MEEEL, INC.; VLADISLAV A. MINUTE ORDER MOKSHIN; and PW FUNDING II 10 LLC, 11 Defendants.

12 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 13 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to deliver funds to defendant PW Funding II LLC, docket 14 no. 15, is DENIED. Plaintiff has not established that the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. An interpleader action may proceed in federal court under either (i) Federal Rule 15 of Civil Procedure 22, or (ii) 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Under Rule 22, deposit of the entire sum in dispute is not required, but a basis for jurisdiction independent of the interpleader is 16 needed. See McKeithen v. S.S. Frosta, 75 F.R.D. 7, 10 n.3 (E.D. La. 1977). Plaintiff has alleged no separate federal question in this matter and, although the parties are diverse, 17 the amount in controversy does not exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. Thus, Rule 22 is not applicable, and the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1335 must be satisfied to confer 18 subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Plaintiff, however, has not complied with the statutory requirement of depositing into the Registry of the Court the funds at issue or 19 providing an appropriate bond, and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(2); see also State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Jonas, 775 F.3d 867, 869 (7th Cir. 20 2014); Fed. Ins. Co. v. Tyco Int’l Ltd., 422 F. Supp. 2d 357, 395-96 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Schneider v. Cate, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1267 (D. Col. 2005). Even if the Court had 21 jurisdiction, it would not disburse funds from the Registry of the Court in the absence of a properly served and noted motion under Local Civil Rule 67 and entry of a judgment 22 via default or otherwise. 1 (2) This case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Minute Order, plaintiff 2 deposits the entire sum in dispute into the Registry of the Court or posts a bond in an amount approved by the Court. 3 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of 4 record. Dated this 24th day of February, 2020. 5 6 William M. McCool Clerk 7 s/Karen Dews 8 Deputy Clerk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., 7 Plaintiff, 8 v. C19-1857 TSZ 9 MEEEL, INC.; VLADISLAV A. MINUTE ORDER MOKSHIN; and PW FUNDING II 10 LLC, 11 Defendants.

12 The following Minute Order is made by direction of the Court, the Honorable Thomas S. Zilly, United States District Judge: 13 (1) Plaintiff’s motion to deliver funds to defendant PW Funding II LLC, docket 14 no. 15, is DENIED. Plaintiff has not established that the Court has jurisdiction over this matter. An interpleader action may proceed in federal court under either (i) Federal Rule 15 of Civil Procedure 22, or (ii) 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Under Rule 22, deposit of the entire sum in dispute is not required, but a basis for jurisdiction independent of the interpleader is 16 needed. See McKeithen v. S.S. Frosta, 75 F.R.D. 7, 10 n.3 (E.D. La. 1977). Plaintiff has alleged no separate federal question in this matter and, although the parties are diverse, 17 the amount in controversy does not exceed the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold. Thus, Rule 22 is not applicable, and the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1335 must be satisfied to confer 18 subject matter jurisdiction on the Court. Plaintiff, however, has not complied with the statutory requirement of depositing into the Registry of the Court the funds at issue or 19 providing an appropriate bond, and the Court therefore lacks jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(2); see also State Farm Life Ins. Co. v. Jonas, 775 F.3d 867, 869 (7th Cir. 20 2014); Fed. Ins. Co. v. Tyco Int’l Ltd., 422 F. Supp. 2d 357, 395-96 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); Schneider v. Cate, 405 F. Supp. 2d 1254, 1267 (D. Col. 2005). Even if the Court had 21 jurisdiction, it would not disburse funds from the Registry of the Court in the absence of a properly served and noted motion under Local Civil Rule 67 and entry of a judgment 22 via default or otherwise. 1 (2) This case will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction unless, within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Minute Order, plaintiff 2 deposits the entire sum in dispute into the Registry of the Court or posts a bond in an amount approved by the Court. 3 (3) The Clerk is directed to send a copy of this Minute Order to all counsel of 4 record. Dated this 24th day of February, 2020. 5 6 William M. McCool Clerk 7 s/Karen Dews 8 Deputy Clerk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Wells Fargo Bank NA v. Meeel Inc, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wells-fargo-bank-na-v-meeel-inc-wawd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack