Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15779/USCOURTS-ca11-15-15779-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Robert Joe McBride
Appellee
Marcus McMillian
Appellant
Western Express, Inc.
Appellee

Document Text:

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 15-15779

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 1:15-cv-00815-AT

ROBERT JOE MCBRIDE, 

WESTERN EXPRESS, INC., 

 Plaintiffs - Appellees, 

versus

MARCUS MCMILLIAN, 

 Defendant - Appellant, 

THE ATLANTA ORTHOPAEDIC SURGERY CENTER, LLC, et al.,

 Defendants.

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Georgia

________________________

(February 13, 2017)

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 1 of 9
2

Before MARTIN, JULIE CARNES, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: 

Defendant challenges the district court’s discharge of interpleader Plaintiffs

from action and entry of a permanent injunction in Plaintiffs’ favor. Concluding 

that Plaintiffs deposited the proper amount of money with the court and that the 

district court did not abuse its discretion in granting Plaintiffs’ request for a 

permanent injunction, we AFFIRM. 

I. BACKGROUND

Defendant Marcus McMillian (“McMillian”) was awarded a $264,600 

judgment against Plaintiffs Robert McBride and Western Express (“Plaintiffs”) on 

March 4, 2015, following a jury trial. Claiming that lawyers, medical providers, 

and others have liens on or competing claims to the judgment, Plaintiffs brought an 

interpleader complaint against McMillian and those who assert, or who could 

assert, claims to the judgment funds. Plaintiffs brought the claim under both 28 

U.S.C. § 1335 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22. They also sought a 

permanent injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

65 to restrain future proceedings against the judgment funds outside of the 

interpleader action. 

The district court granted Plaintiffs’ motion to deposit the judgment funds 

with the court. The district court also issued a temporary restraining order against 

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 2 of 9
3

McMillian preventing him from executing on the judgment, and later a preliminary 

injunction to preserve the status quo while the court decided how to allocate the 

funds. In support of their motion for a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs submitted 

a supplemental brief, which included a chart with the amount of money claimed 

against the judgment by each individual or entity, which amount totaled

$531,970.88. As this was over twice the judgment amount, Plaintiffs argued they

were exposed to multiple liability to those who claimed an interest in the judgment. 

In his answer to the complaint, McMillian—acting pro se in this case—

admitted that the complaint arose from a tort judgment of $264,600, and asked the 

court to award him the full judgment amount and all accrued interest. Plaintiffs 

moved to permanently enjoin proceedings against them concerning the judgment 

funds and to be dismissed from the action, arguing that they had deposited the 

required amount with the court and had otherwise satisfied the statutory 

requirements of an interpleader action. 

McMillian subsequently amended his answer, adding a defense that stated he 

rejected Plaintiffs’ claims “in the amount of liability exposed and coverage relative 

to its policy,” as well as changing his prayer for relief to cover the “entire proceeds 

apparent and inherent from the judgment.” McMillian also responded to Plaintiffs’ 

motion for a permanent injunction and discharge, arguing that Plaintiffs could not 

be discharged from the action because they did not post the correct amount with 

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 3 of 9
4

the court. McMillian claimed the proper deposit amount is the full limit available 

under Plaintiff’s relevant insurance policy, which McMillian claims is $4,500,000, 

rather than simply the judgment amount. 

On November 4, 2015, the district court found that Plaintiffs had met the 

statutory requirements for an interpleader action and were entitled to be dismissed. 

The court stated that McMillian had no legitimate claim to any amount of money 

beyond the amount of the judgment entered—which was all that McMillian had 

initially claimed—so no higher deposit amount was required. The court also 

granted a permanent injunction against McMillian and the other claimants, 

preventing them from bringing any actions against Plaintiffs concerning the 

judgment funds. 

McMillian filed a motion to reconsider on November 30, arguing that the 

dismissal and injunction were improper because Plaintiffs did not deposit the

correct amount with the court. The district court rejected McMillian’s motion. 

The court explained that because this was not a case in which an insurance 

company was seeking to determine who was entitled to insurance policy proceeds, 

the limits of any insurance policy held by Plaintiffs was irrelevant. The court 

further noted that the only pool of money at issue was the judgment, and that the 

amount of the judgment was not disputed, so McMillian failed to show why he was 

entitled to anything else. 

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 4 of 9
5

McMillian appealed the November 4 order on December 29, 2015. 

Plaintiffs moved to dismiss the appeal as untimely, but a panel of this Court denied 

that motion and noted as well that diversity-based subject matter jurisdiction 

existed in this case. On appeal, McMillian addresses only Plaintiffs’ action under 

statutory interpleader. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335, 2361. 

II. DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

We review the district court’s decision to grant relief to an interpleader 

plaintiff for an abuse of discretion. See Zelaya/Capital Int’l Judgment, LLC v. 

Zelaya, 769 F.3d 1296, 1300 (11th Cir. 2014) (reviewing under an abuse-ofdiscretion standard the district court’s order allowing judgment debtor to deposit 

disputed funds into the court’s registry); Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc. v. King 

Const. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186, 192 (5th Cir. 2015), cert. denied sub nom.

Noatex Corp. v. Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi Inc., 136 S. Ct. 330 (2015) (“We 

review the district court’s grant of injunctive relief in an interpleader action for 

abuse of discretion.”). 

B. McMillian’s Challenge to Discharge and Permanent Injunction

Interpleader allows a party who holds money claimed by multiple adverse 

claimants “[to] avoid[] multiple liability by asking the court to determine the 

asset’s rightful owner.” In re Mandalay Shores Co-op. Hous. Ass’n, Inc., 21 F.3d 

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 5 of 9
6

380, 383 (11th Cir. 1994). The party holding the funds “typically claims no 

interest in [the] asset and does not know the asset’s rightful owner.” Id. A 

plaintiff can initiate a statutory interpleader action when two or more adverse 

claimants of diverse citizenship assert claims to funds worth $500 or more, and the 

plaintiff deposits the funds with the court. 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The court can 

entertain a interpleader action even if the plaintiff does not deposit the full amount 

claimed, so long as “the full amount of the specific ‘fund’” in dispute is deposited 

with the court. Murphy v. Travelers Ins. Co., 534 F.2d 1155, 1159 n.2 (5th Cir. 

1976).

1

 Once the plaintiff deposits the funds with the court, “all legal obligations 

to the [] claimants are satisfied,” and the court enters “a discharge judgment on 

behalf of the [plaintiff].” In re Mandalay Shores, 21 F.3d at 383; see 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2361. The district court also has the authority to enter a permanent injunction to 

restrain all claimants from instituting any proceeding against the interpleader 

plaintiff concerning the res of the interpleader action. 28 U.S.C. § 2361; see also

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523, 534 (1967) (noting the 

purpose of enjoining suits under § 2361 is to protect the interpleader plaintiff from 

“vexatious and multiple litigation”).

McMillian contends that the district court erred in discharging Plaintiffs 

from the action because Plaintiffs did not deposit enough money with the court. 

 1

 This Court adopted as binding precedent all Fifth Circuit decisions prior to October 1, 1981. 

Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc).

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 6 of 9
7

McMillian also argues that the district court improperly granted the injunction 

because it failed in its order to apply the standard four-factor test governing the 

granting of permanent injunctions. Neither argument is persuasive. 

McMillian has not shown that the amount of the judgment is disputed, nor

that he is entitled to any amount greater than the $264,600 judgment, plus interest, 

that has been deposited with the court. Indeed, McMillian himself initially 

admitted that he was only seeking the amount of the judgment. By claiming the 

full limits available under Plaintiffs’ insurance coverage and calling for that 

amount to be deposited with the court, McMillian attacks the underlying judgment 

as inadequate and seeks to enlarge his recovery. This he simply cannot do in this 

proceeding. To the extent that the amount of the liens and claims against the 

judgment exceeds the funds available—which is the case because McMillian

claims entitlement to the entirety of the judgment—it is an issue between 

McMillian and the other claimants, because it is McMillian who is liable to those 

individuals. That McMillian may owe money to these claimants does not warrant 

increasing the amount of money awarded to him in the judgment against Plaintiffs, 

the extent of which already has been established as the judgment amount. 

Plaintiffs have deposited with the court the correct amount of funds, and so were 

properly discharged from this action. See In re Mandalay Shores, 21 F.3d at 383. 

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 7 of 9
8

Though McMillian argues the district court erred by not laying out the fourfactor test for applying a permanent injunction,2 he only specifically argues that 

Plaintiffs’ “poor claims handling, misconduct[,] and misrepresentation[] would 

prevent a showing of success on the merits.” The district court considered 

Plaintiffs’ allegedly unsavory behavior towards McMillian in his efforts to collect 

on the judgment when declining to award Plaintiffs their attorney’s fees, but 

recognized that the undisputed existence of attorney’s and physician’s liens on the 

judgment nevertheless permitted an interpleader action under the statute. We 

therefore find no abuse of discretion in the district court’s grant of a permanent 

injunction in Plaintiffs’ favor. 

III. CONCLUSION

An interpleader plaintiff is entitled to discharge from the interpleader action 

if he meets the statutory requirements for interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, 

which includes depositing the disputed funds with the court. The district court also 

has the discretion to enter a permanent injunction against any interpleader 

defendants to restrain them from taking further actions against the plaintiff. 

Because Plaintiffs met the statutory requirements for interpleader by properly 

 2 It is questionable whether we should even consider this argument. This Court generally will 

not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal, except under special circumstances, 

Access Now, Inc. v. Sw. Airlines Co., 385 F.3d 1324, 1331 (11th Cir. 2004), which we conclude 

do not apply in this case. McMillian did not attack the district court’s application of the 

permanent injunction standard in his motion for reconsideration, and so he raises this issue for 

the first time on appeal. 

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 8 of 9
9

depositing the full amount of required funds, the district court had the authority to 

discharge Plaintiffs from this action and to enter a permanent injunction restraining 

further actions against Plaintiffs regarding the judgment proceeds in dispute. The 

district court did not abuse its discretion in discharging Plaintiffs or granting the 

injunction, so the district court’s order is AFFIRMED. 

USCA11 Case: 15-15779 Date Filed: 02/13/2017 Page: 9 of 9