WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., Plaintiff, -vs- IRAIDA PINEIRO GOEPP, FRANCIS E. PINEIRO GARCIA, ROBERT C. GOEPP, individually and as Power of Attorney for Iraida Pineiro Goepp, MYRA GOEPP, as Power of Attorney for Iraida Pineiro Goepp, HEIDI M. GOEPP-SCHURMAN, as Power of Attorney for Iraida Pineiro Goepp, and JULIA G. BENKOSKI, as Attorney Ad Litem for Iraida Pineiro Goepp, DONALD F. CARNES, as Guardian Ad Litem for Iraida Pineiro, and FELIPE BRAVO-GARCIA, Defendants.
Case No. 6:11-cv-1746-Orl-28GJK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION
October 10, 2012
TO THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
This cause came on for consideration, without oral argument, on the following motions:
| MOTION: | WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.‘S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER, STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTABLE FACTS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. No. 19) |
| FILED: | March 1, 2012 |
| THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED. | |
| MOTION: | WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A.‘S SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES IN CONNECTION WITH MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON AMENDED COMPLAINT (Doc. No. 64) |
| FILED: | July 6, 2012 |
| THEREON it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED. | |
I. BACKGROUND.
On February 20, 2012, pursuant to
According to the Complaint, оn or about May 23, 2011, a check in the amount of $506,662.28 (the “Check“) was issued by Premier Bank of Puerto Rico to Iraida Pineiro, Francis Pineiro, and Robert Goepp. Doc. No. 11 at ¶ 14. On July 1, 2011, the Check was deposited intо a joint account at WFB held in the names of Iraida Pineiro, Francis Pineiro, and Robert Goepp. Id. at ¶ 15. On July 8, 2011, Francis Pineiro allegedly made a counter-withdrawal in Melbourne, Florida from the joint acсount in the amount $251,000.00. Id. at ¶ 16. On that same day, WFB alleges that Francis Pineiro deposited the withdrawal proceeds into two individual accounts at
WFB maintains that there is currently a dispute between each of the Claimants as to some or all of the proceeds of the Check. Doc. No. 11 at ¶ 19. Pursuant to the Deposit Agreеment, WFB states that it has frozen both accounts pending a determination as to who is entitled to the proceeds of the Check. Id. at ¶ 20. WFB claims no interest in the proceeds of the Check other thаn to its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs as set forth in the Deposit Agreement. Doc. Nos. 11 at ¶¶ 24-25; 11-2 at 12 ¶ 26.1
On March 1, 2012, WFB filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (the “Motion“). Doc. No. 19. In the Motion, WFB states that it is a disinterested stakeholder claiming no beneficial interest in the proceeds of the Check, which are currently being held in restraint by WFB. Doc. No. 19 at 2. WFB states that the facts alleged in the Complaint are indisputablе and it is indifferent as to the Claimants’ respective claims to the proceeds. Doc. No. 19 at 2-3. WFB maintains that pursuant to the Deposit Agreement, it is entitled to an award of $10,150.50 in reasonable attornеys’ fees and $585.00 in costs. Doc. No. 19 at 3. Based on the forgoing, WFB requests that the Court enter an order as follows:
- Permitting WFB to deposit $495,926.78 into the registry of the Court - - representing the proceeds of the Check ($506,662.28) less WFB‘s reasonable attorneys fees and costs
($10,735.50); - Requiring the Claimants to plead and litigate their respective rights to the balance of the proceeds;
- Discharging WFB and/or its agents from any and all liability, and restraining the Claimants from instituting any proceeding or continuing any action against WFB and/or its agents concerning the Check, the proceeds, or the accounts; and
- Dismissing WFB with prejudice.
Doc. No. 19 at 7. Thus, WFB requests that the Court permit it to deduct its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs prior to depositing the proceeds into the Court‘s registry. Doc. No. 19 at 7. In support of the Motion, WFB attaches: the affidavit of Benita Sheffield, its Litigation Support Manager, who attests to the facts set forth in the Complaint and the Motion; the affidavit of Amy S. Rubin, Esq., who attests to the reasonableness of the attorneys’ fees and costs requested; detailed time sheets demonstrating the individuаl who performed each task, a description of the task, the number of hours expended; and a bill of costs showing the costs incurred. Doc. Nos. 19-3; 19-4; 19-5.
On July 6, 2012, the parties filed a Case Management Report, which states:
All parties are in agreement that the Court should grant [WFB‘s Motion] and permit [WFB] to interplead the Disputed Proceeds into the Registry of this Court, and that [WFB] and/or its agents shall be discharged from any and аll liability or responsibility concerning the Disputed Proceeds, the subject check, and/or bank accounts at issue in this action, and that [WFB] should be dismissed as a party to this action with prejudice at this time. With thе exception of Robert Goepp and Heidi Goepp-Schurman, all parties also agree that [WFB] is entitled to an award of its reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs incurred to dаte in this action, and that [WFB] should be entitled to recovery any attorneys’ fees
and costs award prior to interpleading the Disputed Proceeds into the Registry of the Court.
Doc. No. 61 at 1-2. All parties signed the Case Management Report. Thus, except for Robert Goepp and Heidi Goepp-Schurman, who object to any award of attorneys’ fees and costs to WFB, all parties agreе that the Motion should be granted. Doc. No. 61 at 1-2.
On that same day, WFB filed a Supplemental Motion for Attorneys’ Fees in Connection with the Motion (the “Supplemental Motion“). Doc. No. 64. In the Supplemental Motion, WFB states that since the filing of the Motion, it has incurred an additional $7,846.50 in attorneys’ fees. Doc. No. 64 at 3. Thus, the Supplemental Motion amends the Motion, to the extent WFB is now requesting a total of $18,582.00, reрresenting $17,997.00 in attorneys’ fees ($10,150.50 + $7,846.50), and $585.00 in costs. Doc. No. 64 at 3-4. In support of the Supplemental Motion, WFB attaches the affidavit of Amy Rubin, Esq. and detailed time sheets. Doc. Nos. 64-1; 64-2. In the Supplemental Motion‘s Loсal Rule 3.01(g) certificate, WFB states that all Claimants except for Robert Goepp and Heidi Goepp-Schurman have no objection to the additional attorneys’ fees requested. Doс. No. 64 at 5.
On September 13, 2012, Robert Goepp and Heidi Goepp-Schurman filed a joint response to the Supplemental Motion. Doc. No. 75. In the joint response, they state that they have no objection to the Motion or the Supplemental Motion. Doc. No. 75 at 1. Therefore, the Motion and the Supplemental Motion are both unopposed.
II. ANALYSIS.
“Interpleader is the means by which аn innocent stakeholder, who typically claims no interest in an asset and does not know the asset‘s rightful owner, avoids multiple liability by
Interpleader action proceeds in two stages. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. v. Hovis, 553 F.3d 258, 262 (3d Cir. 2009). At the first stage, the court determines whether interpleader is proper and “whether to discharge the stakeholder from further liability to the claimants.” Id. At the second stage, the court evaluates “the respective rights of the claimants to the interpleaded funds.” Id.
Interpleader is appropriate where the stakeholder may be subject to adverse claims that could expose it to multiple liability on the same fund.
Fed.R.Civ.P. 22(a)(1) . “In an interpleader action, the burden is on the party seeking interpleader to demonstrate that he is entitled to it,” or more specifically, “that he has been or may be subjected to adverse claims.” Dunbar v. United States, 502 F.2d 506, 511 (5th Cir. 1974). When the court decides that interpleader is available, it may issue an order discharging the stakeholder, if the stаkeholder is disinterested. United States v. High Tech. Prods., Inc., 497 F.3d 637, 641-42 (6th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted).
353 Fed.Appx. at 248.2 Thus, at the first stage in an interpleader action, the Court determines whether interpleader is appropriate and whether to discharge the plaintiff from all further liability. Only thereafter will the Court determine the respective rights of the claimants. Id.
Based on the forgoing, it is RECOMMENDED that the Court:
- GRANT the Motion (Doc. No. 19);
- GRANT the Supplemental Motion (Doc. No. 64);
- Award WFB $18,582.00 in attorneys’ fees and costs;
- Direct WFB to deposit $488,080.28 ($506,662.28 - $18,582.00) into the registry of the Court;
- Discharge WFB and/or its agents from any and all liability or responsibility concerning the Check, the accounts at issue, and/or the proceeds of the Check;
- Restrain and/or enjoin Claimants from instituting, commencing, or mаintaining any action against WFB and/or its agents relating to the Check, the accounts at issue, and/or the proceeds of the Check;
- Dismiss WFB with prejudice after it deposits $488,080.28 into the registry of the Court;
- Direct the Claimants to file their respective claims to the proceeds within fourteen
(14) days from the date of the Court‘s order; and - Direct answers to those claims within fourteen (14) days after they are filed.
Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations contained in this rеport within fourteen (14) days from the date of its filing shall bar an aggrieved party from attacking the factual findings on appeal. If the parties have no objection to this report and recommendаtion, they may promptly file a joint notice of no objection with the Court.
RECOMMENDED at Orlando, Florida on October 10, 2012.
GREGORY J. KELLY
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Copies furnished to:
Counsel of Record
Unrepresented Parties