Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

US Bank Trust, N.A. v. Dickey, 280 F.Supp.3d 237 (2017)

Court: District Court, D. Massachusetts Number: infdco20171121b95 Visitors: 9
Filed: Nov. 20, 2017
Latest Update: Nov. 20, 2017
Summary: ORDER OF DISMISSAL Saris , C.J. BACKGROUND Plaintiff U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust ("U.S. Bank"), filed this interpleader action (Docket No. 1-3) in Suffolk County Superior Court, pursuant to an order by the Boston Housing Court. U.S. Bank sought to have the state court decide the rights of Defendants James S. Dickey, Endeavor Capital Funding LLC f/k/a Capital Trust Funding LLC ("Endeavor Capital"), and the United States of America with respect t
More

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff U.S. Bank Trust, N.A., as Trustee for LSF9 Master Participation Trust ("U.S. Bank"), filed this interpleader action (Docket No. 1-3) in Suffolk County Superior Court, pursuant to an order by the Boston Housing Court. U.S. Bank sought to have the state court decide the rights of Defendants James S. Dickey, Endeavor Capital Funding LLC f/k/a Capital Trust Funding LLC ("Endeavor Capital"), and the United States of America with respect to $440,893.64 in surplus funds from a foreclosure sale. On January 4, 2017, Defendant United States of America removed the case to this Court. Dickey then filed a counterclaim against U.S. Bank and a third-party complaint against 497 E. 4th Street LLC and Andrew Schena (Docket No. 23). A hearing on the pending motions was held on November 20, 2017.

ORDER

This interpleader action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Court has not addressed the case on the merits. However, based on the parties' representations at the hearing, Defendants' individual claims to the surplus funds do not exceed $440,893.64. An interpleader action is not appropriate under these circumstances where the claimants are not adverse. See Hudson Sav. Bank v. Austin, 479 F.3d 102, 107 (1st Cir. 2007) ("[I]nterpleader is not available unless the defendants' claims are `adverse' to each other." (citation omitted)); see also State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 537, 87 S.Ct. 1199, 18 L.Ed.2d 270 (1967) (noting that "federal interpleader was not intended to serve the function of a `bill of peace'"). For this reason, all claims and counterclaims in this action are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer