Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Santillana

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: July 22, 2025
• Docket: 24-4706
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUL 22 2025 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL No. 24-4706 ASSOCIATION, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-00317-LK-BAT Plaintiff,

v. MEMORANDUM*

ARMANDO CADENA SANTILLANA,

Defendant - Appellee,

v.

EXPEDITORS INTERNATIONAL OF WASHINGTON INC,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Lauren J. King, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted July 10, 2025 Seattle, Washington

Before: McKEOWN, PAEZ, and SANCHEZ, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Expeditors International of Washington, Inc. (“Expeditors Washington”)

appeals the district court’s order disbursing to Armando Cadena Santillana

(“Cadena”) funds interpleaded by Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. Exercising jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, we affirm.

After Wells Fargo filed the interpleader complaint in this action, Expeditors

Washington filed a separate action (“the direct action”) against Cadena. See

Expeditors Int’l of Wash., Inc. v. Santillana, No. 2:20-CV-00349-LK (W.D.

Wash.).1 Presuming that resolution of the direct action would determine the

rightful owner of the interpleaded funds, the district court stayed this interpleader

action.

Ultimately, Expeditors Washington filed a Second Amended Complaint

(“SAC”) in the direct action in which it did not allege an ownership interest in the

interpleaded funds nor any connection between those funds and its claims. The

district court vacated the stay and disbursed the interpleaded funds to Cadena,

finding that he had established a presumption of ownership over the Wells Fargo

bank account, which Expeditors Washington had failed to rebut by demonstrating

1 We grant the motion for judicial notice of court filings from the direct action, Dkt. 16, and take notice of this court’s recent disposition in that matter, Expeditors Int’l of Wash., Inc. v. Cadena, No. 24-108 (9th Cir. Mar. 5, 2025). See Reyn’s Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006) (“[Courts] may take judicial notice of court filings and other matters of public record.”).

2 24-4706 that it had a superior claim to the funds. In doing so, the district court also denied

Expeditors Washington further discovery.

Expeditors Washington argues that the district court erred in lifting the stay

in the interpleader action because the ownership dispute had not been resolved in

the direct action. We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s decision to

vacate a stay. See CMAX, Inc. v. Hall, 300 F.2d 265, 268 (9th Cir. 1962); In re

PG&E Corp. Sec. Litig., 100 F.4th 1076, 1085 (9th Cir. 2024).

Expeditors Washington further argues that the district court compounded its

error by prohibiting discovery in the interpleader action and granting Cadena’s

motion to disburse the interpleaded funds despite the absence of a developed

evidentiary record.

The district court treated Cadena’s motion to disburse as a summary

judgment motion under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and we

therefore review the court’s order de novo. Minn. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Ensley, 174

F.3d 977, 981 (9th Cir. 1999). However, we review the district court’s decision not

to permit additional discovery prior to granting summary judgment for abuse of

discretion. Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010). We will not find an

abuse of discretion unless the party seeking discovery “can show how allowing

additional discovery would have precluded summary judgment.” Panatronic USA

v. AT&T Corp., 287 F.3d 840, 846 (9th Cir. 2002).

3 24-4706 Interpleader’s primary purpose is to protect neutral stakeholders of disputed

funds, usually insurers or banks, from multiple liability or multiple litigation by

consolidating litigation of the competing claims in a single action brought by the

stakeholder. Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 1030, 1034 (9th Cir. 2000);

see 28 U.S.C. § 2361. “[T]he fund itself is the target of the claimants” and “marks

the outer limits of the controversy.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386

U.S. 523, 534 (1967).

Here, Expeditors Washington has asserted no viable interest in the

interpleaded funds. The allegations in the Second Amended Complaint in the direct

action are not related to the disputed Wells Fargo account. And in its filings in this

interpleader action, Expeditors Washington repeatedly declined to explain the basis

of its claims to the funds in the account, merely referring to the SAC or asserting

that it required further discovery. Moreover, in opposing the disbursement of funds

to Cadena, Expeditors Washington appears to assert the interest of its subsidiary,

Expeditors Mexico, rather than its own.

Cadena, meanwhile, established that the interpleaded funds were contained

in a personal bank account which he opened and maintained in his own name. He

is therefore presumed to own the funds therein. See, e.g., EM Ltd. v. Republic of

Argentina, 473 F.3d 463, 474 (2d Cir. 2007) (“When a party holds funds in a bank

account, possession is established, and the presumption of ownership follows.”); 9

4 24-4706 C.J.S. Banks & Banking § 289 (2025) (“[T]he party who possesses property is

presumed to own it, and one who holds funds in a bank account possesses that

account and the presumption of ownership follows.”).

Because a favorable adjudication of the SAC will not establish that

Expeditors Washington has any ownership interest in the disputed funds, the

district court did not abuse its discretion in vacating the stay in this action even

though the direct action was pending on appeal. Likewise, because Expeditors

Washington failed to provide any explanation for a viable claim to the funds in

Cadena’s bank account, it failed to show how additional discovery could preclude

summary judgment. On this record, the district court did not abuse its discretion in

denying that discovery. Finally, in the absence of any competing claim to the

disputed funds, the district court did not err in disbursing the funds to Cadena

based on his unrebutted presumed ownership of the funds in the Wells Fargo bank

account.

AFFIRMED.

5 24-4706