Case 1:14-cv-09661-ALC-SN Document 236 Filed 07/26/17 Page 1 of 3
`Case 1:14-cv-09661-ALC-SN Document 236 Filed 07/26/17 Page 1 of 3
`USDC SDNY
`DOCUMENT ELECTRONICALLY
`FILED
`
`DOC#: ________.__..__
`DATE FILED:M
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————X
`
`Russell Slifer,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`:
`
`:
`
`1:14-cv—9661
`
`ORDER
`
`CG Technology, L.P.,
`
`Defendant.
`____________________________________________________________X
`
`ANDREW L. CARTER, JR., United States District Judge:
`
`Before the Court is Defendant CG TechnolOgy, L.P.’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.
`
`67 for leave to deposit funds with the Court. The Court ordered Plaintiff Russell Slifer to show
`
`cause why Defendant’s request should not be granted. Plaintiff has failed to respond. For the
`
`reasons that follow, Defendant’s request is granted.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff won a jury verdict against Defendant on both counts of his suit for breach of
`
`contract and breach of the implied covenant of fair dealing and good faith. The jury awarded
`
`Plaintiff $250,000 “based on Defendant's failure to return the Patent” and $150,000 “for some
`
`other reason.” ECF 187 at 3. On January 26, 2017, the Court entered judgment against
`
`Defendant for a total of $400,000. ECF 189. On June 13, 2017, the Court granted Plaintiffs
`
`motion for prejudgment interest as of August 29, 2013 under the statutory framework. ECF 227
`
`at 17—18. The Court denied the parties' other post—trial motions, including Plaintiffs request for
`
`equitable relief in addition to the monetary damages awarded by the jury.
`
`Id. at 18.
`
`Defendant has twice offered to pay the full judgment plus interest to Plaintiff, and
`
`Plaintiff has twice refused to accept payment in satisfaction of the judgment. Paul Decl. W 5-6.
`
`In the meanwhile, Plaintiff has moved for reconsideration of the Court’s decision on its post—trial
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-09661-ALC-SN Document 236 Filed 07/26/17 Page 2 of 3
`Case 1:14-cv-09661-ALC-SN Document 236 Filed 07/26/17 Page 2 of 3
`
`motion for equitable relief. Accordingly, Defendant seeks leave to deposit with the Court the
`
`full amount of the judgment plus pre-judgment and post—judgment interest, subject to
`
`Defendant’s rights on appeal and in defense to Slifer's post—trial motions.
`
`DISCUSSION
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67 permits the deposit of funds in dispute with the Clerk
`
`of the Court, and provides as follows:
`
`Depositing Property. 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). The purpose of Rule 67 is to “provide a place of safekeeping for disputed
`
`funds pending resolution[.]” Ray Legal Consulting Group v. DiJoseplz, 37 F. Supp. 3d 704, 729
`
`(S.D.N.Y. 2014) (quoting Prudential Ins. Co. ofAm. v. BMC Indus., Inc, 630 F. Supp. 1298,
`
`1300 (S.D.N.Y. 1986)). Courts have discretion to permit deposits. NYLife Ins. Co. v.
`
`Aleano’re, No. 13 Civ. 2384, 2014 WL 30508, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 2, 2014).
`
`Because Plaintiff has refused to accept payment, Defendant seeks to deposit funds in
`
`order to satisfy judgment in order to halt the accrual of interest. The Second Circuit has stated
`
`that stopping the running of interest is a valid reason for such a request. Kotsopoulos v. Asturia
`
`Shipping Co, 467 F.2d 91, 94 (2d Cir. 1972) (stating that under Rule 67 a party is not “prevented
`
`by the pendency of an appeal from provisionally discharging his debt, since he can, by leave of
`
`Court, pay the money into the registry of the Court and stop the running of interest”); accord
`
`Cordero v. De Jesus~Mendez, 922 F.2d 11, 18-19 (1st Cir. 1990); Cajun Elec. Power Co—op., Inc.
`
`v. Riley Stoker Corp, 901 F.2d 441, 445 (5th Cir. 1990). Essentially, ifa party owes interest
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 1:14-cv-09661-ALC-SN Document 236 Filed 07/26/17 Page 3 of 3
`Case 1:14-cv-09661-ALC-SN Document 236 Filed 07/26/17 Page 3 of 3
`
`under a contract, as does Defendant here, the party can avoid interest obligations by depositing
`
`disputed funds with the court. Accordingly, the Court will permit Defendant to deposit the full
`
`amount of the judgment plus pre-judgment and post—j udgment interest to date with the Court.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth, Defendant’s motion for leave to deposit funds with the Court is
`
`GRANTED.
`
`Dated:
`
`July 26, 2017
`New York, New York
`
`ANDREW L. CARTER, JR.
`United States District Judge
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`