Opinion
No. 10-16208 D.C. No. 2:09-cv-00064-LDG-PAL No. 10-16330
09-21-2012
METHWOLD INTERNATIONAL FINANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. R. CHRISTOPHER MANFREDONIA; CARL WINTERS; MCNEAL, INC.; MIKE MCNEAL; CAMERON WINTERS; JOHN AVERY; WALTER S. MESCH; MINDY IRIS; DOP, INC., Defendants - Appellants, and KARIS ANGELIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; RUSSEL AKINS; TARYN AZELSKI; KEVIN BAKER; DENNIS BINKLEY; LEE BRAUN; KEVIN S. BRYDEN; ROBERT BRYDEN; KEVIN BUSCHER; CRD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SUSAN E. CHAMP; DORTHEA CHILD; KAREN CHRISTENSEN; STEVEN CHRISTENSEN; JAMES COOPER; D&T INVESTMENTS; LEWIS DAWLEY; CHUCK DAY; RICHARD DUBOIS; JOEL EDWARDS; ANGELA FARLEY; FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK; GARLAND RAY FITE; WILLIAM FOREMAN; ARNOLD FRIESEN; CLAUDIA FURLOW; AMY GAFNEY; ROBERT GAFNEY; MEREDITH GIAMBATTISTA; PAULETTE GIAMBATTISTA; GOLDFINGER COIN AND BULLION, INC.; CHRISTOPHER R. HALL; MICHAEL HINSON; KEITH B. HONEYCUTT; INWEST TITLE SERVICES; JITE HOLDINGS PTY. LTD.; MARK JOHNSON, Assistant Federal Public Defender; KELLY LEHTO; ADRIANE N. MARTIN; DEANNA MARTIN; DENNIS v. MARTIN; RICHARD C. MOELLER; ALEXANDER MONCADA; MICHAEL MORRIS; RUSSELL MORRIS; BESSIE MORROW; GALEN NELSON; STEVE NYGREN; MIKE ONIONS; SINDA M. ONIONS; MORGAN PAVON; BROOKE PETERSON; TROY PETERSON; JASON M. PORCELLI; RD SOLUTIONS; LARRY ROBERTS; RANDALL RODDY; KEN ROWEN; WILLIAM R. SANDERLIN; BILL SHAFFER; BARRY SULLIVAN; THE BULLION EXCHANGE; THE CLOTTEY GROUP, INC.; THE DENT GUYS, LLC; TERRY G. VAN HILSEN; CHARLES WAGES; DYLAN WAGES; JEANETTE WAGES; BRADLEY R. WILLIAMS; DAVID R. WILLIAMS; SCOTT WOLT, Defendants, ARTHUR B. KESTER, Respondent-intervenor, BELINDA BARON; JOSEPH W. HANDLEY; DAVID ELIZONDO; CLARK MCKAY; DAVID SHOCKLEY, Real-party-in-interest. METHWOLD INTERNATIONAL FINANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KARIS ANGELIA MANAGEMENT, INC.; R. CHRISTOPHER MANFREDONIA; CARL WINTERS; MCNEAL, INC.; MIKE MCNEAL; CAMERON WINTERS; JOHN AVERY; WALTER S. MESCH; MINDY IRIS; DOP, INC.; RUSSEL AKINS; TARYN AZELSKI; KEVIN BAKER; DENNIS BINKLEY; LEE BRAUN; KEVIN S. BRYDEN; ROBERT BRYDEN; KEVIN BUSCHER; CRD TECHNOLOGIES, INC.; SUSAN E. CHAMP; DORTHEA CHILD; KAREN CHRISTENSEN; JAMES COOPER; D&T INVESTMENTS; LEWIS DAWLEY; CHUCK DAY; RICHARD DUBOIS; JOEL EDWARDS; ANGELA FARLEY; FARMERS & MERCHANTS BANK; GARLAND RAY FITE; WILLIAM FOREMAN; ARNOLD FRIESEN; CLAUDIA FURLOW; AMY GAFNEY; ROBERT GAFNEY; MEREDITH GIAMBATTISTA; PAULETTE GIAMBATTISTA; GOLDFINGER COIN AND BULLION, INC.; CHRISTOPHER R. HALL; MICHAEL HINSON; KEITH B. HONEYCUTT; INWEST TITLE SERVICES; JITE HOLDINGS PTY. LTD.; MARK JOHNSON, Assistant Federal Public Defender; KELLY LEHTO; ADRIANE N. MARTIN; DEANNA MARTIN; DENNIS v. MARTIN; RICHARD C. MOELLER; ALEXANDER MONCADA; MICHAEL MORRIS; RUSSELL MORRIS; BESSIE MORROW; GALEN NELSON; STEVE NYGREN; MIKE ONIONS; SINDA M. ONIONS; MORGAN PAVON; BROOKE PETERSON; TROY PETERSON; JASON M. PORCELLI; RD SOLUTIONS; LARRY ROBERTS; RANDALL RODDY; KEN ROWEN; WILLIAM R. SANDERLIN; BILL SHAFFER; BARRY SULLIVAN; THE BULLION EXCHANGE; THE CLOTTEY GROUP, INC.; THE DENT GUYS, LLC; TERRY G. VAN HILSEN; CHARLES WAGES; DYLAN WAGES; JEANETTE WAGES; BRADLEY R. WILLIAMS; DAVID R. WILLIAMS; SCOTT WOLT, Defendants, ARTHUR B. KESTER, Respondent-intervenor, JOSEPH W. HANDLEY; BELINDA BARON; CLARK MCKAY; DAVID SHOCKLEY; DAVID ELIZONDO, Real-party-in-interest, and STEVEN CHRISTENSEN, Defendant - Appellant.
**NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Lloyd D. George, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Las Vegas, Nevada
Before: ARNOLD, RAWLINSON, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.
The Honorable Morris S. Arnold, Senior Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit, sitting by designation.
Appellants, defendant-claimants below, appeal from the district court's dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a 28 U.S.C. § 1335 interpleader action brought by Methwold International Finance Company. The facts of this case are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, but we dismiss because appellants lack standing on appeal.
A party appealing a judgment must be able to satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing. Knisley v. Network Assocs., Inc., 312 F.3d 1123, 1126 (9th Cir. 2002). Constitutional standing requires that an appellant show that it is "likely, and not merely speculative, that a favorable decision will provide redress." Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 (1992)).
Although we are sympathetic to the appellants' predicament in this case, and understand the difficulties associated with bringing a separate suit against Methwold because it is a foreign company, a favorable decision would not provide any redress for the appellants' alleged injuries. There are no funds to distribute because the proposed interpleader fund was not deposited with the district court. Methwold is also unlikely to bring another motion to deposit funds or respond to any further proceedings. Methwold failed to respond to the district court's order below demanding that Methwold show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and it has not responded to this appeal. Indeed, Methwold's counsel have withdrawn from the case. It is not within our power to force Methwold back into court, and any argument that Methwold might voluntarily return is speculative at best. Thus, because there is no redress available for appellants' alleged injuries, they lack standing on appeal.
Though we also decline to decide the issue, dicta in a prior decision suggests that Nevada may have personal jurisdiction over Methwold as a result of Methwold bringing an interpleader action in this case. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Calderon, 422 F.3d 827, 834 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Gen. Contracting & Trading Co. v. Interpole, Inc., 940 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir. 1991) (citations omitted)) ("assum[ing] without deciding" that we would apply a First Circuit case holding that "personal jurisdiction exists where a defendant also independently seeks affirmative relief in a separate action before the same court concerning the same transaction or occurrence" whether the action "take[s] place prior to the suit's institution, or at the time suit is brought, or after suit has started").
--------
DISMISSED.