Case Information
*1 FILED
U.S.f"T . :T U".':T IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COUIif~ .~:v:' vf , ....:. j 1..;';;J FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND 2011AUGI 8 P 5: 00 SOl/tilei'll Dh'i.{iOlI c; ~L ..,- ~'" -';: ,,1( .._•.
DEL CONCA USA, INC. * Plaintiff, * Case No.: G./H-16-33.l() v. * NATHANIEL AKERS * Defendant. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court previously granted. in part. and denied. in part. Manulaeturers & Traders Trust Company's ("M&T's") Motion lor Entry of an Order of Interpleader and Other Relief: ECF No. 16. See ECF Nos. 22 and 23. In a Memorandum Opinion and Order. the Court directed M&T to deposit the Funds at issue in this interpleader action with the Registry of the Court. awarded an amount of attorneys' fees and costs to he dishursed to M&T Ii'om the deposited Funds. and realigned then-Defendant Del Conca USA. Inc. ("Del Conca") as "Plaintiff' against Dcfendant Nathaniel Akers. I-laving now received the Funds in the Registry of the Court. Plaintiff Del Conca's Motion for DelilUlt Judgment against Defendant Akers. ECF No. 17 is now ready for resolution. No hearing is necessary. See Loc. R. 105.6 (D. Md. 2016). For the following reasons. Plaintiff Dcl Conca's Motion lor Delault Judgment against Akers is granted. The remainder of the Funds in the Registry shall he dishursed to Del Conca.
I.
*2 BACKGROUND The filcts of this case were fully set forth inthe Court's Memorandum Opinion dated July 25.2017. ECF No. 22 at 2-4. I Following an alleged wire transfer of $302.662.69 (the "Funds") on or about September 6. 2016. from a bank account held by Del Conca to an account held by
to the Funds arose. S"" lOCI' No. I 'I'i
Akers with M&T. a dispute as to the proper entitlement
11-21. Shortly alier the Funds were transferred and credited to Akers' account at M&T. Del Conca contacted M&T. asserting that the transfer was procured by Iraud. and requested that
'114. In response. and alier Del Conca tiled a suit in M&T return the Funds to Del Conca./d state court in New York against M&T. M&T initiatcd this intcrpleadcr action against Del Conca and Akcrs to dcterminc ownership of the Funds. ECF No. I.
In the Court's prcvious Opinion. the Court directed M&T to deposit the disputed Funds with the Clerk of Court. and upon receipt. indicatcd that it would discharge M&T Irom further liability regarding the Funds. and enjoin Del Conca and Akers from instituting or prosecuting any further legal proceeding against M&T with regard to the Funds. However. the Court reserved resolving Del Conca's motion for default judgment as to Akcrs. reasoning that defaulljudgment could not be rendered against Akers in the case's earlier posture. and would be premature .. 'i'"" ECF No. 22 at 3-4. To date. Akers has not entered an appearance in the mallcr. and the time It)J" responding to the pending Motions has cxpired. I-laving received the Funds. and upon consideration of Del Conca's Motion for Delilllil Judgmcnt against Defendant Akers. ECF No. 17. the Court now grants the Motion It)r Default Judgmcnt against Akcrs. and directs the Clerk to disbursc the remaining amount of the depositcd Funds to Plaintiff Del Conca. I Pin cites to documents filed on the Court's electronic tiling system (CMfECF) refer to the pngc numbers generated by Ihat system.
II.
*3 DISCUSSION "Interpleader is a proccdural device that allows a disinterested stakeholder to bring a to a single fund'" Security Ins. Co. of" single action joining two or more adverse claimants lial'(!hl'd ". Arcade Texti/es. /nc.. 40 F. App'x 767. 769 (4th Cir. 2002). An interpleader action in two stages. Easthalll. 2016 WL 2625281. at *2 (D. Md. May 9. 2016) generally proceeds (citing 7 Charles A. Wright. Arthur R. Miller. & Mary K. Kane. Federal Practice and Procedure ~ 1714 (3d ed. 2001): Rapid Sell/elllel1/s. Ltd. ". U.S. Fid. & Gual'. Co.. 672 F.Supp.2d 714. 717 (D. Md. 2009». Initially. the Court determines "whether the stakeholder has properly invoked interpleader'" Easthalll. 2016 WI. 2625281. at *2 (citing United States ". lIigh Tech. Prods .. /nc .. 497 F.3d 637. 641 (6th Cir. 2007». II' the Court determines interpleader to be proper. consistent with 28 U.S.C. ~ 2361 ... the Court may direct the funds plus interest to be deposited with the Clerk. dismiss the stakeholder with prejudice and discharge it Irom all liability with respect to the deposited funds. and prohibit the claimants from initiating or pursuing any action regarding the [property at issue]."' Easthalll. 2016 WI. or proceeding against the stakeholder 2625281. at *2. During the second stage of an interpleader action. the Court issues a scheduling order and ..the case continues between the claimants to determine their respective rights'" Easthalll. 2016 WI. 2625281. at *2. (citing Rhoades \'. Casey. 196 F.3d 592. 600). The claimants including pleading. discovery. motions. and trial'" !d engage in the "nonnallitigation processes. (citing lIigh Tech.. 497 F.3d at 641 ). Here. the Court cannot proceed to the second stage because Akers is in deftlult.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 55 "authorizes the entry of default judgment when a in accordance with the Rules'" United States ". defendant fails .to plead or otherwise defend' Moradi. 673 F.2d 725. 727 (4th Cir.1982). Upon the moving party's request. Rule 55(a) allows *4 the Clerk of the Court to enter del~llIlt against the defendant who has "I~liled to plead or otherwise defend."' Fcc!. R. Civ. P. 55(a). Alier a default has been entcrcd. Rule 55(b)(2) authorizes the Court ..to enter a default judgment against [that partyj for thc amounts claimed and costs."' Guardian Lile Ins. Co. ojAm. \'. Spencer. NO.5: J OCV00004. 20 I0 WL 3522 131. at *3 (W.D. Va. Sept. 8.2010) (citing Fcd. R. Civ. P. 55(b)(2». "In the context of an interpleader action. a defendant against whom a default judgmcnt has been cntered forfeits any claim of cntitlement that might have been asserted by that defendant."' Id. (citing Nationwide '\/ut. Fire Ins. Co. \'. Eason. 736 F.2d 130. 133 n.4 (4th Cir. 1(84) (noting that "[e]learly. ifall but one named interpleadcr dclendant delaulted. the rcmaining delendant would be entitled to thc fund."): see also AmoClJ Production Co. \'. A.\l'en Group. 59 F. Supp. 2d 1112. 1116 (I). Colo. 1(99) ("\T]hc failure of a named interpleadcr dcfcndant to answcr thc interpleadcr complaint and assert a claim to the jthc property] can be viewcd as forleiting any claim of entitlcment that might havc bccn asscrted."').
In this case. Akers has dclaultcd. Akers was servcd on January 3. 2017. ECF No. 12. Akers has not responded to the Complaint. and the timc lor doing so has passed. Additionally. Akers has not responded to the Motion lor Dclilllit Judgment liled on Fcbruary 14.2017. The Clerk entered default against Akers on July 25. 2017. and Akers has yet to entcr an appcaranee or assert any ownership over the Funds. Thercfore. Akcrs has lorleitcd any claim of entitlcmcnt to thc Funds that hc may have assertcd. and Plaintiff Del Conca is cntitled to thc Funds. See. e.g .. Liji! Ins. Co. ojN Am. \'. Hale. No. CIVA08CV02551 RPMKMT. 2009 WL 2843270. at *3 (D. Colo. Aug. 31. 2009) (cntering dclaultjudgmcnt against interplcader delendant and noting that "in an interpleader action in which all but onc named intcrplcadcr dclendant has dclaultcd. is entitlcd to the res. "): Protective Lile Ins. Co. \'. Tinney. NO.2: 14-CV- thc remaining defendant *5 02251-TMP. 2015 WL 1402464. at *4 (N.D. Ala. Mar. 25. 2015) (noting thaI ..the law seems to hold that a delimit judgmcnt may bc cntcred against any named and served interpleader defendant who fails to rcspond to thc interpleader complain!."): Am. Nal'/ Balik & husl Co. or Chicaxo \'. A/pol E/ec Co.. No. 99 C 6990. 2002 WL 484845. at *2 (N.D. III. Mar. 29.2(02) (tinding that defendant was "c1early cntitled" to have his motion IiJr dcfault judgment granted against onc of two other dcfendants who had neither answered nor appeared): Europeall Am. Balik \'. Rom/ .'I/O/Ill Vacalioll C1uh. No. 87 CIV. 2 I 54(RWS). 1988 WI. 68194. at * 1-2 (S.D.N. Y. June 20. 1988) (granting movant" s motion for dcfault judgmcnt against two othcr defendants who did not file a timely answer to the complaint in interplcadcr action). Accordingly. the Motion for Dcfault Judgmcnt against Akers shall be granted.
III. CONCLUSION
ror thc foregoing rcasons. Del Conca's Motion for Dcfault Judgment against Akers. ECr No. 17. is grantcd. Alier distributing to M&T the $9.092.60 in attorneys' lees and costs previously awarded, .lee ECI' No. 23. the Clcrk of Court shall disburse the rcmaindcr of the depositcd Funds to Del Conca. As previously stated, M&T is discharged Irom further liability regarding thc Funds. and Dcl Conca and Akers are enjoined IrOl11instituting or prosecuting further legal proceedings arising out of the runds. See 28 U.S.c. * 2361. A separate Order shall Issue.
dt4 GEORGE J. IIAZEL Date: August! f'. 2017 Unitcd States District Judge