Opinion
Case No. 20-cv-908 (JRT/TNL)
11-16-2020
Benchmark Insurance Company, Plaintiff, v. SUNZ Insurance Company, et al., Defendants.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiff Benchmark Insurance Company filed this interpleader action on April 9, 2020. On June 3, 2020, the Court ordered Benchmark to deposit $20,533,594 in interpleader funds with the Court's registry. (ECF No. 154.) Since Benchmark filed suit, Defendant Resourcing Edge I, LLC has filed an interpleader in which it disclaims its interest in the interpleaded funds and asks to be dismissed from the matter. (ECF No. 404.) The Court has previously granted SUNZ Insurance Company's motion to withdraw funds that relate to this Defendant in light of its disclaimer.
When a defendant in an interpleader action "files a declaration disclaiming any interest in the funds deposited in court by the complainant, that defendant has no further interest or legal standing in the action." Amoco Production Co. v. Aspen Group, 189 F.R.D. 614, 616 (D. Colo. 1999). It is therefore appropriate to dismiss an interpleader defendant who makes no claim to the deposited funds. Oakley Grains, Inc. v. Shumate, No. 17-cv-717, 2018 WL 4568596, at *3 (E.D. Ark. Sept. 24, 2018) (citing Great Lakes Auto Ins. Group of Chicago, Ill. v. Shepherd, 95 F. Supp. 1, 5 (W.D. Ark. 1951)); see also Great West Cas. Co., Inc. v. Fredrics, No. 10-cv-267, 2011 WL 5041196, at *1-2 (W.D. N.C. Oct. 24, 2011). In this case, the above Defendant has expressly disclaimed its interest in the interpleaded funds. The Court therefore recommends that it be dismissed from the lawsuit with prejudice.
Therefore, based upon the record, memoranda, and proceedings herein, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED THAT Defendant Resourcing Edge I, LLC, BE DISMISSED FROM THIS ACTION, that said Defendant may have and recover nothing of the interpleaded funds, and that there be no award of costs or attorney's fees. Date: November 16, 2020
s/Tony N . Leung
Tony N. Leung
United States Magistrate Judge
District of Minnesota
NOTICE
Filings Objections: This Report and Recommendation is not an order or judgment of the District Court and is therefore not appealable directly to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Under Local Rule 72.2(b)(1), "a party may file and serve specific written objections to a magistrate judge's proposed finding and recommendations within 14 days after being served a copy" of the Report and Recommendation. A party may respond to those objections within 14 days after being served a copy of the objections. LR 72.2(b)(2). All objections and responses must comply with the word or line limits set forth in LR 72.2(c).