Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00587/USCOURTS-azd-2_09-cv-00587-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Magellan’s Motion to Stay and Motion for Reconsideration also include its objections

to Wells Fargo’s Notice of Deposit.

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Wells Fargo Bank, National Association,

Plaintiff, 

vs.

The Magellan Ship Owners Association, et

al., 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-587-PHX-MHM

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Nineteen Consolidated Claimaints/Defendants’

Joinder of Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.’s (“Wells Fargo”) Motion to Seal and a Request for a

Stay of the Objection Period, (Dkt.#237), and The Magellan Ship Owners Association’s

(“Magellan”) Motion to Stay, Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting the Motion

to Seal, (Dkt.#243).1

 After reviewing the pleadings and determining oral argument

unnecessary, the Court issues the following Order. 

This is a statutory interpleader action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 relating to funds

that were being held in an escrow account by Wells Fargo. Wells Fargo filed the interpleader

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 252 Filed 01/25/10 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

but claims no interest in the disputed funds. On January 4, 2010, this Court filed an Order

directing Wells Fargo to deposit in an interest bearing account with the Clerk of the Court

the disputed funds, together with any and all additional interest actually earned thereon up

to the date of such deposit, and provide notice to all Claimants/Defendants. (See Dkt.#233).

The Court also gave the Claimants/Defendants 10 calendar days after Wells Fargo deposited

the disputed funds to object to the nature or manner of the deposit. The Court further

Ordered that 20 calendar days after the disputed funds were deposited, Wells Fargo would

be discharged from this action and that all counter-claims against it relating to the interplead

funds would be dismissed with prejudice. 

On January 8, 2010, Wells Fargo filed a Notice of Deposit with the Court. (Dkt.#234.)

At the same time, Wells Fargo filed a Motion requesting that the Court seal Exhibit A to the

Notice of Deposit. (Dkt.#235.) On January 12, 2010, a consolidated group of

Claimants/Defendants joined in support of Wells Fargo’s Motion to Seal. (Dkt.#237.) That

same day, Claimant/Defendant Cramer Family (Survivor's) Trust U.T.D. 6-12-90 and its

Trustee, Lorraine A. Cramer, as well as Claimants/Defendants James Haglund and Patty

Haglund joined to support Wells Fargo’s request. (Dkt.##238, 239.) Wells Fargo’s Motion

to Seal Exhibit A to the Notice of Deposit was granted by the Court on January 14, 2010, the

Court granted. (Dkt.#241.) 

On January 15, 2010, Magellan filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Order

granting the Motion to Seal, as well as a Motion to Stay the Discharge and Dismissal of

Wells Fargo. (Dkt.#243.) Magellan argues in its Motion that sealing Exhibit A deprives

Magellan of the opportunity “to conduct a meaningful review or analysis of Wells Fargo’s

claims and contentions,” and that no compelling reasons exist to seal the document. (Id. at

6-7.) 

With respect to Magellan’s request for reconsideration of the Order sealing Exhibit

A, the Court noted that motions for reconsideration are granted only in rare circumstances.

Defenders of Wildlife v. Browner, 909 F. Supp. 1342, 1351 (D. Ariz. 1995). Mere

disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration. See Leong

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 252 Filed 01/25/10 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

v. Hilton Hotels Corp., 689 F. Supp. 1572, 1573 (D. Haw. 1988). Nor is reconsideration to

be used to ask the court to rethink what it has already thought through. United States v.

Rezzonico, 32 F. Supp.2d 1112, 1116 (D. Ariz. 1998). Reconsideration is only appropriate

if the district court “(1) is presented with newly discovered evidence, (2) committed clear

error or the initial decision was manifestly unjust, or (3) if there is an intervening change in

controlling law.” School Dist. No. 1J. Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc., 5 F.3d 1255,

1263 (9th Cir. 1993). Because none of the Multnomah County factors warrant

reconsideration of the Court’s prior Order sealing Exhibit A of Wells Fargo’s Notice of

Deposit, Magellan’s request will be denied. 

As to Magellan’s Motion to Stay, the Court finds that the original date providing

Claimants/Defendants with 10 calendar days to object to Wells Fargo’s Notice of Deposit

was unfairly shortened due to the delay caused by the sealing of Exhibit A. Wells Fargo filed

its Notice of Deposit on January 8, 2010. (Dkt.#234.) Under the Court’s previous ruling,

Claimants/Defendants would have had until January 18, 2010 to file objections. (See

Dkt.#233, p. 7.) However, the Motion to Seal Exhibit A was not granted until January 15,

2010. Because Wells Fargo did not effectuate service of process of Exhibit A until January

15, 2010—at which point it was mailed to all Claimants/Defendants—Claimants/Defendants

were unable to review Wells Fargo’s accounting practices until well past the initial date of

deposit. Therefore, in the interests of fairness, the Court is compelled to modify its earlier

ruling.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED permitting Claimants/Defendants until close of business

February 8, 2010 to file objections to the nature or manner of the deposit by Wells Fargo.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Wells Fargo will not be dismissed from this

lawsuit until the Court Orders it dismissed. Wells Fargo will not be dismissed until after the

Court has reviewed all objections filed by Claimants/Defendants, and the Court has approved

Wells Fargo’s deposit.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 252 Filed 01/25/10 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED directing Wells Fargo to file its Motion for Attorney

Fees within 10 calendar days after the Court issues an Order dismissing Wells Fargo from

the lawsuit. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all other dates referenced in the Court’s January

4, 2010 Order are to remain in effect, including the requirement that the Parties meet and

confer requirement and file, to the extent practical, a Joint Proposed Scheduling Order.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying as moot Defendants' Joinder of Wells Fargo

Bank, N.A.'s Motion to Seal and a Request for a Stay of the Objection Period. (Dkt.#237.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED denying The Magellan Ship Owners Association's

Motion to Stay and Motion for Reconsideration of the Order Granting the Motion to Seal.

(Dkt.#243.)

DATED this 22nd day of January, 2010.

Case 2:09-cv-00587-SRB Document 252 Filed 01/25/10 Page 4 of 4