Court, Explained
U.S. Federal District Courts
←Back to docket
S.D.N.Y.Procedural orderFiled June 24, 2022

Equitable Advisors, LLC v. Gordon

Judge
Denise Cote
Docket
1:22-cv-04990
Court
U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
Pages
3
Civil Procedure
In one sentence

In Equitable Advisors v. Gordon, Judge Cote denied without prejudice Equitable’s request to deposit interpleader funds.

Who this affects

Equitable Advisors, LLC and the defendants identified as potential claimants to the $31,026.12 in death-benefit proceeds, including the trustee-related parties and the other named defendants.

What happened

Equitable Advisors, LLC asked the Southern District of New York to allow it to deposit $31,026.12 in death-benefit proceeds with the court because multiple defendants may claim the money.

Equitable also requested an order preventing the claimants from bringing other proceedings affecting the funds. The application relied on federal interpleader laws and court rules governing deposits with the court.

The court denied the application without prejudice, allowing Equitable to renew it after all defendants have been served. The order identifies Judge Denise Cote in the supplied case information.

The detailed version

For law students, journalists, and other readers who want the full reasoning

Case
Equitable Advisors, LLC v. Gordon · No. 1:22-cv-04990
Judge
Denise Cote
Date
June 24, 2022

Background

Equitable Advisors, LLC asked the court for an order permitting it to deposit $31,026.12 in death-benefit proceeds, plus any applicable interest, with the court clerk. The proceeds came from a Strategic Asset Management Account and were payable because of Linda Khan’s death. The account also included securities, but the opinion states that their treatment would be addressed in a separate motion.

Equitable relied on statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, as well as Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 22 and 67. Interpleader is a procedure that allows a party holding disputed money or property to place it with the court while competing claimants resolve their rights to it. Equitable also requested an order under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 preventing the claimants from bringing or continuing other proceedings affecting the property.

Court’s analysis

The opinion explains that statutory interpleader jurisdiction generally requires a fund exceeding $500, a reasonable fear of conflicting claims by claimants with diverse citizenship, and deposit of the disputed fund with the court. The court stated that the first two requirements were satisfied because the amount was $31,026.12 and the defendants were identified as citizens of New York, Colorado, Virginia, Washington, D.C., and Israel. Equitable sought to satisfy the third requirement by making the requested deposit.

Ruling

The court denied the application without prejudice. The order states that Equitable may renew the motion after all defendants have been served. The supplied case information identifies Denise Cote as the judge, although the scanned order’s signature block appears to identify a different judge; the opinion text is unclear on that point.

The authoritative version

Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.

Open opinion PDF →
Summary written with AI assistance. See how summaries are made. Spot something wrong? Tell us.