Wimberly v. Stern
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:22-cv-07581
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Wimberly v. Stern, Judge Broderick denied Wimberly’s request to deposit funds because the money was not directly at issue.
Jason Wimberly’s request to deposit $1,581.99 in this federal case was denied. The ruling also meant that the court would not manage funds apparently related to the state-court action involving Spring Bank.
What happened
In Wimberly v. Stern, Jason Wimberly asked the court for permission to deposit $1,581.99 under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67. He said the amount represented the balance sought by Spring Bank in a separate state-court case.
Spring Bank and Melanie Stern did not object if the deposit would not change the parties’ legal duties or affect the state-court case. Jay Lawrence Hack and Gallet, Dreyer, & Berkey, LLP also did not object but said the deposit would not resolve Wimberly’s legal or factual arguments, represent the full amount owed, or waive their right to seek attorney’s fees.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied the motion. He explained that this federal case had no counterclaims against Wimberly involving a money judgment or funds, and that the money appeared to concern the state-court case instead.
The detailed version
- Wimberly v. Stern · No. 1:22-cv-07581
- Vernon Broderick
- Aug. 29, 2023
Background
Jason Wimberly moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 for permission to deposit $1,581.99 with the court. Rule 67 allows a party to deposit money with the court when the case involves a requested money judgment or the disposition of money or another deliverable item. Wimberly stated that the proposed deposit was the balance sought by Spring Bank in a state-court counterclaim.
The court identified Spring Bank and Melanie Stern as the “Bank Defendants.” They stated that they did not object to the deposit if it would not change the parties’ legal duties, affect Spring Bank’s state-court counterclaim, operate as a credit against Wimberly’s debt before the funds were released to Spring Bank, or prevent release of the funds to Spring Bank after Wimberly’s claims against Spring Bank were dismissed. The court identified Jay Lawrence Hack and Gallet, Dreyer, & Berkey, LLP as the “GDB Defendants.” They also did not object but stated that the deposit would not represent the full amount Wimberly owed Spring Bank, agree with Wimberly’s legal or factual assertions, or waive their right to seek attorney’s fees.
Discussion
The court explained that Rule 67 is a procedural method for safeguarding disputed funds while a legal dispute is resolved. It is not intended to change the parties’ contractual relationships or legal duties, and the court has discretion to allow or deny a deposit.
The court found that this federal case contained no counterclaims against Wimberly. Because no claim in this case involved a money judgment or the disposition of money, the court saw no need to manage funds that were not directly at issue. The court also found it improper to exercise discretion over funds that appeared to be at issue in the state-court action.
Ruling
Judge Vernon S. Broderick denied Wimberly’s motion to deposit funds. The clerk was directed to terminate the pending motion at Doc. 13.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.