Opinion ID: 75842
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: District Court's Disbursement Order

Text: 38 The Corporate Appellants argue that the district court's disbursal order failed to comply with the local rules of the Northern District of Georgia because it did not contain language mandated in such orders pursuant to Rule 67.1D(2). Within the order granting summary judgment for Nippon, the district court denied Matthews's motion for payment of his attorneys' fees from the funds held in the court's registry, denied the Achievers Defendants' request for disbursement from the funds, and denied the Corporate Defendants' attorneys' motion for attorneys' fees from the funds. R28-295-2, 17, 19. The court found that the Corporate Defendants were Matthews's alter egos, granted Nippon's motion for summary judgment, and ordered disbursement to [Nippon] of all funds deposited in the Court registry. 14 Id. at 2. 39 The Local Rules of the Northern District of Georgia require [a]n order ... directing that funds in litigation be ... disbursed from the registry of the court. N.D. Ga. R. 67.1A(1). A party moving for disbursement of registry funds must submit a proposed order which 40 shall contain therein the following language: ... the clerk is authorized and directed to draw a check(s) on the funds on deposit in the registry of this court in the principal amount of $ plus all accrued interest, minus any statutory users fees, payable to (name and address of payee) and mail or deliver the check(s) to (payee or attorney) at (full address with zip code). 41 N.D. Ga. R. 67.1D(1) and (2). 42 Initially, we note that the Corporate Appellants did not initially present this issue to the district court. 15 We generally will not consider an issue or theory that was not raised in the district court. Narey v. Dean, 32 F.3d 1521, 1526 (11th Cir.1994) (quotation and citation omitted). Further, although we have not addressed this issue, other courts have permitted district courts to depart from local rules even where the rule is phrased in mandatory language where it has sound rationale and does not unfairly prejudice a party. United States v. Eleven Vehicles, 200 F.3d 203, 214-15 (3rd Cir.2000) (reviewing the various circuit court opinions). The rule at issue is specifically addressed to litigants who move for disbursement of registry funds. The parties were familiar with the amount of funds in the registry and the party to whom the disbursement was made was clear to all. It does not appear that there was any prejudice to the parties. Therefore, we find this issue meritless.