Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Heisler, 18-2522. (2018)
Court: District Court, E.D. Louisiana
Number: infdco20180313922
Visitors: 6
Filed: Mar. 12, 2018
Latest Update: Mar. 12, 2018
Summary: ORDER IVAN L.R. LEMELLE , Senior District Judge . Considering Plaintiff's "Ex Parte Motion for Order of Interpleader" (Rec. Doc. 3), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff, having notified Defendants of the instant motion via e-mail, seeks authorization to deposit three hundred thirty thousand, seven hundred ninety dollars and ninety-three cents ($330,790.93) into the registry of the Court ( see Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a); LR 67.2) and DENIED AS PREMATURE in all ot
Summary: ORDER IVAN L.R. LEMELLE , Senior District Judge . Considering Plaintiff's "Ex Parte Motion for Order of Interpleader" (Rec. Doc. 3), IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff, having notified Defendants of the instant motion via e-mail, seeks authorization to deposit three hundred thirty thousand, seven hundred ninety dollars and ninety-three cents ($330,790.93) into the registry of the Court ( see Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a); LR 67.2) and DENIED AS PREMATURE in all oth..
More
ORDER
IVAN L.R. LEMELLE, Senior District Judge.
Considering Plaintiff's "Ex Parte Motion for Order of Interpleader" (Rec. Doc. 3),
IT IS ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED insofar as Plaintiff, having notified Defendants of the instant motion via e-mail, seeks authorization to deposit three hundred thirty thousand, seven hundred ninety dollars and ninety-three cents ($330,790.93) into the registry of the Court (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a); LR 67.2) and DENIED AS PREMATURE in all other respects. The other questions raised by Plaintiff's motion, such as whether interpleader is appropriate and whether other proceedings should be enjoined, are best addressed in a properly noticed motion that allows Defendants, after they have been served and made an appearance, an opportunity to be heard. See Rhoades v. Casey, 196 F.3d 592, 600-01 (5th Cir. 1999); see also 7 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice & Procedure § 1714 (3d ed. 2017) ("The decision whether interpleader is appropriate is made by the court, but only after all parties have been given notice and an opportunity to be heard on the question.").
Source: Leagle
