United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SATYA DEVI JAGAR,

Plaintiff,

 v.

JUANITA JAGAR, et al.,

Defendants. /

 AND RELATED COUNTERCLAIM

___________________________________/

No. C-09-01455 EDL

ORDER GRANTING IN THE

ALTERNATIVE DEFENDANT BARKER

BLUE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO

DEPOSIT FUNDS OR FOR AN ORDER

REQUIRING PAYMENT OF FUNDS TO

PLAINTIFF

Plaintiff Satya Devi Jagar brought this action seeking a judicial determination regarding

entitlement to the proceeds of decedent Pyara Jagar’s 401(k) plan, which is administered by

Defendant Barker Blue Digital Imaging, Inc. 401(k) Plan (“The Plan”) and governed by the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”), 29 U.S.C. § 1101, et seq. On November 23,

2009, the Court granted the Plan’s motion to dismiss the cross-complaints of Juanita Jagar, Vijay

Jagar, Rajesh Jagar and Dinesh Jagar on the grounds that the claims in the cross-complaints were

preempted by ERISA. In that Order, the Court also granted Plaintiff’s motion for summary

judgment, affirming the Plan Trustee’s May 5, 2009 decision that Plaintiff is entitled to the Plan

proceeds. The Jagar Defendants have appealed the Court’s November 23, 2009 decision, but did not

post a bond or seek a stay of the Court’s decision. 

On February 2, 2010, the Plan filed a Motion for Leave to Deposit Funds, seeking to deposit

the Plan proceeds with the Court on the ground that it may be at risk for double liability if the Jagar

Defendants are successful in their appeal and are unable to recover from Plaintiff any Plan proceeds

Case 3:09-cv-01455-EDL Document 72 Filed 03/10/10 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 28 U.S.C. § 2041, however, does not necessarily provide for automatic disbursement of

money paid into the Court. 

2

that may have been previously been paid to her. Alternatively, the Plan seeks an order requiring it to

pay the Plan proceeds to Plaintiff in accordance with the Court’s November 23, 2009 decision. 

Plaintiff opposes the motion, arguing essentially that the motion is unnecessary because funds paid

to the Court would be automtically disbursed to Plaintiff pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2041 and the

Court’s November 23, 2009 Order.1

This matter is appropriate for decision without oral argument. Therefore, the March 16,

2010 hearing is vacated. For the reasons stated in this Order, the Plan’s motion is granted in part,

and the Plan is ordered to pay the Plan proceeds to Plaintiff. 

The Plan relies on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 to support its argument that the Plan

proceeds should be deposited with the Court: 

If any part of the relief sought is a money judgment or the disposition of a sum of

money or some other deliverable thing, a party--on notice to every other party and by

leave of court--may deposit with the court all or part of the money or thing, whether

or not that party claims any of it. The depositing party must deliver to the clerk a

copy of the order permitting deposit.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 67. “The core purpose of Rule 67 is to relieve a party who holds a contested fund

from responsibility for disbursement of that fund among those claiming some entitlement thereto.” 

Alstom Caribe, Inc. v. George P. Reintjes Co., Inc., 484 F.3d 106, 113 (1st Cir. 2007) (citing 12

Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Richard L. Marcus, Federal Practice & Procedure § 2991

(2d ed. 1997)). “It follows logically that a district court should not grant a Rule 67 motion unless

the question of entitlement is genuinely in dispute.” See Alstom, 484 F.3d at 113. “Moreover, the

entitlement dispute must be live; that is, the dispute must be extant at the time the court is asked to

grant the Rule 67 motion.” Id. 

Even if there is a live dispute in this case, the Court declines to permit the Plan to deposit the

funds with the Court. This case is not like United States Overseas Airlines v. Compania Aerea

Viajas Expresos de Venezuela, 161 F. Supp. 513 (S.D. N.Y. 1958), on which the Plan relies. There,

judgment was entered in favor of an individual and a corporate defendant and against the plaintiff,

execution of the judgment was stayed pending appeal and a bond was posted. Meanwhile, in a

Case 3:09-cv-01455-EDL Document 72 Filed 03/10/10 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

separate state court action brought by another plaintiff, the state court issued a writ of attachment

attaching all property in which the individual and corporate defendant had any interest which was in

the possession of the plaintiff in the federal case. Subsequently, in another state court action, the

court appointed a temporary receiver of the local assets for the corporate defendant. Then, the

attorney for the individual and corporate defendants advised the company that posted the bond that

any payment to the temporary receiver would be at the bonding company’s peril, and that the

bonding company would be held responsible to the individual and corporate defendant if those

defendants were not able to obtain the amount of the judgment from the bonding company. Because

there was a live dispute as to who was entitled to the judgment proceeds, the court ordered payment

of the funds into the court. 

Here, the Jagar Defendants did not post a bond or seek a stay of execution of the judgment

pending appeal, so they are not entitled to have the distribution of the funds to Plaintiff stayed

pending appeal - the result that the deposit of the funds in the Court would achieve. The Court has

already affirmed the Plan Trustee’s decision to disburse the Plan proceeds to Plaintiff. There is no

need to deposit the funds in the Court to await the resolution of the appeal in this case, which could

be lengthy. Therefore, in accordance with the Court’s November 23, 2009 Order, the Court orders

the Plan to pay the Plan proceeds to Plaintiff. The payment shall be made no later than March 19,

2010. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2010 

ELIZABETH D. LAPORTE

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 3:09-cv-01455-EDL Document 72 Filed 03/10/10 Page 3 of 3