BOWLES v. NY LIBERTY et al, No. 2:2011cv03529 - Document 68 (D.N.J. 2015)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER granting 61 Motion to Deposit Funds (Finance notified). Signed by Magistrate Judge Joseph A. Dickson on 6/1/2015. (nr, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
BOWLES v. NY LIBERTY et al Doc. 68 NOT FOR PUBLICATION IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY MAHALEY STEWART BOWLES, Civil Action No. 2:11-cv-3529 (ES) (JAD Plaintiff, OPINION AND ORDER v. NY LIBERTY, et al., ~- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~JI __ Defendants. JOSEPH A. DICKSON, U.S.M.J. Presently before the Court is a motion for leave to deposit funds with the Court, (ECF 61), filed by Defendants Madison Square Garden, L.P. and New York Liberty, a Division f Madison Square Garden, L.P., (collectively "Defendants") on March 24, 2015. Plaintiff filed r Opposition, (ECF No. 63), on April 16, 2015, and a hearing was conducted the same day. following reasons, Defendants' motion to deposit funds with the Court is GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND. On or about June 19, 2009, Plaintiff, Mahaley Stewart Bowles, ("Plaintiff'), was attendin a New York Liberty game at the Madison Square Garden when she tripped and fell on a "danger s condition" on the premises. (Compl.if 12). In June 2011, Plaintiff commenced the underlyi g lawsuit against the Defendants Madison Square Garden, L.P., (improperly pled as "Madi n Square Garden, Inc., Madisons Square Garden") and New York Liberty, a division of Madi n Square Garden, L.P., (improperly pled as "NY Liberty") (collectively "Defendants"). (Compl. 1 Dockets.Justia.com On February 7, 2014, a settlement conference was held before the undersigned, where e parties agreed on the record to a settlement for $175,000. (See ECF. No. 41, Transcript f Settlement, (hereinafter "Transcript of Settlement")). At the time of the settlement conferen e, Plaintiff was represented by Hunt, Hamlin & Ridley, ("HHR"). As a result of the settlement n the record, the Court dismissed the matter without prejudice, (ECF No. 39), and Defend counsel sent a Release to Plaintiffs counsel on the same day for Plaintiffs signature, (ECF 43-2, Cert. of Atty. in Support of Mot. to Enforce Settlement if 7). Thereafter, on March 11, 2014, this Court noted on the docket that the Court had receive a letter dated February 24, 2014 from Plaintiff addressed to HHR regarding the settlement. (E No. 40). In the February 24, 2014 letter, Plaintiff stated that she was "uncomfortable" agreein o the $175,000 settlement and instead stated that she "would feel comfortable" settling for o r $600,000. (Id.). As a result, this Court ordered that if Plaintiff wished to reopen the matter, had to "make an appropriate application to the Court." ilib). Nevertheless, on March 17, 2014, e Court posted to the docket a revised version of the February 24, 2014 letter (dated March 2014), which Plaintiff sent to HHR and copied to the Court, in which Plaintiff added a request punitive damages, bringing the amount she "would feel comfortable settling for" to $1.63 milli (ECF No. 42). In short, Plaintiff refused to sign the Release and instead sought to reopen matter to obtain a higher settlement amount. In response to Plaintiffs refusal to sign the Rele on March 20, 2014, Defendants filed a motion to enforce the terms of the settlement. (ECF 43). On April 22, 2014, the undersigned held a status conference, during which Plaintiff advi the Court that she was seeking new counsel. On July 11, 2014, William W. Mandeville, E substituted into the case as Plaintiffs counsel. (ECF No. 49). On September 11, 2014, HHR s 2 r correspondence to Plaintiff stating, "This letter is to confirm the law firm of Hunt, Hamlin Ridley maintains a lien on this file based on the $175,000.00 offer of settlement reache ." (Mandeville Cert. if l 5). Thereafter, on November 20, 2014, the undersigned held a status conference and gave parties until December 12, 2014 to meet and confer on the motion to enforce the terms of e settlement. On December 11, 2014, Defendants advised the Court that after reviewing a list medical bills provided by Plaintiff, its position was unchanged and accordingly asked the Cou rule on the motion. (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff replied, stating that the parties did not meaning confer regarding the list of medical bills. (ECF No. 56). On December 15, 2014, the Honorable District Judge, Esther Salas issued an Opinion Order granting Defendants' motion to enforce the terms of the February 07, 2014, settlem t agreement. (December 15, 2014 Opinion and Order, ECF Nos. 57-58). On February 05, 20 4, HHR sent a letter to Mr. Mandeville in which HHR requests the payment of legal fees, p s expenses, for the $175,000 settlement. (Mandeville Cert. if23). On February 11, 2015, Plaintiff signed the Settlement Release. Cert. ifl6). The following day on February 12, 2015, HHR sent an email to Mr. Mandeville counsel for Defendants, asserting HHR's claim to attorney's fees, in the amount of $58,2 (Mandeville Cert. if25, Riina Cert. ifl 7). Defendants counsel informed Mr. Mandeville telephone on February 23, 2015 that due to the dispute regarding the attorney's fees, Defend were willing to either deposit the funds into court or disburse the funds with the consent of counsel involved. (Riina Cert. ifl8). On March 24, 2015, Defendants filed the instant motio deposit funds with the Court, (ECF No. 61). 3 y II. DISCUSSION Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 provides in pertinent part: 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(a). "As a general proposition, the purpose of a deposit in court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. is to relieve the depositor of responsibility for a fund in dispute, while the parties hash out t differences with respect to it ... " 10 Fed. Proc., L. Ed. ยง 24: 1. Thus, while the "Rule's procedu s provide a place of safekeeping for disputed funds pending the resolution of a legal dispute .. cannot be used as a means of altering the contractual relationships and legal duties of the parti Browning Ferris, Inc. v. Montgomery Cnty., No. CIV. A. 90-3258, 1990 WL 131937, at *2 (E Pa. Sept. 4, 1990). Moreover, the decision whether to allow a Rule 67 deposit lies within discretion of the Court. Progressive Cas. Ins. Co. v. Drive Trademark Holdings LP, 680 F. Su p. 2d 639, 641 (D. Del. 2010). In their papers, Defendants emphasize that they "have settled the underlying action and e currently ready, willing, and able to make payment to the Plaintiff of the agreed upon sum f $175,000.00." (ECF No. 61-1 at 8). Defendants state that despite their eagerness to pay settlement amount, Plaintiffs current and former counsel have delayed the process since they b th have asserted competing claims over the settlement funds. (Id.). As a result, Defendants ar e that they should be excused from further proceedings related to the settlement, as Defendants h e no interest in the funds or the manner of allocation. (ECF No. 65 at 2). Moreover, Defend contend it is "not the responsibility of defense counsel to attempt to determine whether Mr. Hu 4 assertion of a lien was correct or incorrect, or valid or invalid as supported by the law or facts. " ilih at 3). Conversely, Plaintiff argues that the Court should deny Defendants' motion to deposit e funds because there is no "real dispute - one that could expose Defendants to liability." (ECF 63 at 11 ). In support of this position, Plaintiff contends "Defendants have not presented a scinf la of proof ofHHR's entitlement," and therefore, the question of entitlement is not in dispute. at 15). In addition, Plaintiff asserts that Defendants have an obligation under the oral settlem agreement to pay the settlement funds to the Plaintiff. (Id. at 13). Specifically, Plaintiff ar that Defendants' motion should be denied because it is "an effort [to] escape contrac responsibility to the plaintiff." (Id. at 11). Moreover, Plaintiff maintains that granting leav o deposit into court would alter the Settlement agreement and therefore, be "altering the contract et for in Honorable Esther Salas, U.S.D.J.' [sic] Order, hence reopening the case." (Id. at 12). Upon review of the parties' arguments, the Court is persuaded that there is a legitim te dispute over attorney's fees between Plaintiffs present counsel and former counsel. 1 The C finds that it would be inequitable to deny Defendants' motion to deposit the funds with the Co as it would effectively be putting Defendants in the middle of a legal fees dispute in which t have no interest. See Garrick v. Weaver, 888 F.2d 687, 694 (10th Cir. 1989) (finding Magistrat 's decision to deposit disputed settlement funds with the Court "both ensured that the settlement would be available for disbursement and facilitated judicial economy by permitting the defenda who no longer had an interest in the funds or in these proceedings, to withdraw."); see 1 Moreover, Defendants need not present any evidence as to either counsels' "entitlement" tot e funds, as Plaintiff suggests. There is clearly a dispute regarding the funds. 5 CASCO, Inc. v. John Deere Const. Co. & Forestry Co., 293 F.R.D. 99, 100 (D.P.R. 2013) ("R e 67 is a useful took in circumstances when a third party... holds a sum-certain to which multi le parties dispute ownership."). The Court disagrees with Plaintiffs argument that Defendants are attempting to alter e Settlement agreement or escape their contractual responsibilities. Rather, the Court recogni s that the Defendants simply want to satisfy their obligations under the Settlement agreement excuse themselves from a legal fees dispute in which they have absolutely no interest in. Thi just the situation Rule 67 was designed to address. The Court finds that Rule 67 appropriat y provides a place of safekeeping for the disputed funds until the dispute is resolved. Accordin the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion to deposit funds with the Court, (ECF No. 61 III. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, this Court hereby GRANTS Defendants' motion to deposit fu with the Court, (ECF No. 61). SO ORDERED JOSEPH A. DICKSON, U.S.M.J. cc: Hon. Esther Salas, U.S.D.J. 6 s
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
