Washington Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P.C., 590
| Decision Date | 09 February 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 590,D,590 |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
| Parties | , Util. L. Rep. P 13,920 WASHINGTON ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., Plaintiff, Village of Morrisville, Appellant, v. PATERSON, WALKE & PRATT, P.C.; Paterson, Gibson, Noble and Goodrich; Charles E. Gibson, Jr.; Austin B. Noble; Julian R. Goodrich; Gordon J. Booth; Frederick Ladue; Robert Toombs, Defendants, Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company, Defendant-Appellee. ocket 92-7807. |
Robert A. Mello, South Burlington, VT (Leslie C. Pratt, of counsel), for appellant.
Gerald J. Caruso, Boston, MA (Nicholas J. Scobbo, Jr., Laurie Ellen Weisman, Ferriter, Scobbo, Sikora, Singal, Caruso & Rodophele, P.C., Boston, MA, Stephen S. Ankuda, Parker & Ankuda, P.C., Springfield, VT, of counsel), for appellee.
Before: PIERCE, MINER and McLAUGHLIN, Circuit Judges.
The Massachusetts Municipal Wholesale Electric Company ("MMWEC"), a public corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, plans and finances the acquisition of bulk power supplies, consisting of ownership interests in electric power facilities. MMWEC executes contracts--so-called Power Sales Agreements ("PSAs")--with giant power consumers, such as utilities, electric cooperatives, and municipalities, who agree to purchase electricity from MMWEC. MMWEC typically issues bonds to finance its acquisition of electric generating facilities, and the money paid to MMWEC under the PSAs is used to pay the bonds.
MMWEC bought a six-percent interest in a nuclear power plant being constructed in Seabrook, New Hampshire. MMWEC designated this as "Project No. 6" and, in 1979, executed PSAs for the Project with several Vermont villages, including Stowe and Morrisville, and with two Vermont electric cooperatives. MMWEC later determined that Stowe and another project participant did not satisfy the financial criteria for participation in Project No. 6, and, therefore, made them withdraw.
MMWEC offered the newly available shares in Project No. 6 to other project participants. Still eager to share in the Project, Stowe persuaded Morrisville to purchase more power from MMWEC than it needed so that it could resell the excess to Stowe. Accordingly, in May 1981, Morrisville executed an "Agreement for Additional Participant's Share of Project Capability" with MMWEC, increasing its share of the Project by an additional 2.901 megawatts. Morrisville then made a contract with Stowe, assigning to Stowe "2.722 megawatts of capacity and related energy from [Morrisville's] entitlement in MMWEC's Project No. 6."
In 1986, Morrisville began making payments to MMWEC under its PSA. Stowe paid Morrisville for its pro-rated share of power, and Morrisville forwarded these payments to MMWEC as part of its total payments to MMWEC. This tidy arrangement fell apart in 1988, when the Vermont Supreme Court declared the PSAs executed by the Vermont villages and electric cooperatives to be void ab initio. See Vermont Dep't of Pub. Serv. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 151 Vt. 73, 558 A.2d 215 (1988), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 202, 107 L.Ed.2d 155 (1989); see also Washington Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Massachusetts Mun. Wholesale Elec. Co., 922 F.2d 92 (2d Cir.1990) (further factual background). By then, Morrisville had already paid MMWEC almost $3 million, of which $1.8 million were on Stowe's behalf and $1.2 million were payments from Morrisville on its own account.
Shortly after the Vermont Supreme Court's decision, one of the other Vermont participants sued MMWEC in Vermont state court for restitution of monies paid under its PSA. MMWEC removed the case to the District Court for the District of Vermont (Franklin S. Billings, Judge ), and Stowe later intervened as a party plaintiff, seeking restitution of the $1.8 million that Morrisville had paid MMWEC for the benefit of Stowe.
Fearful that it might be whipsawed between Stowe and Morrisville, MMWEC filed a counterclaim for interpleader against Stowe, requesting (1) that Morrisville be made a party defendant to its interpleader claim, and (2) that Stowe and Morrisville be required to resolve all claims they had against MMWEC. Five days later, Morrisville sued Stowe and MMWEC in Vermont State Court seeking (1) restitution of the $1.2 million it paid MMWEC for its share of Project No. 6 power capability, and (2) a declaration of the rights and obligations between itself, Stowe, and MMWEC.
Back in federal court, Morrisville moved to dismiss MMWEC's interpleader counterclaim; and MMWEC renewed its request for interpleader and added a request for an injunction to abort Morrisville's state court action. Judge Billings referred the motions to Magistrate Judge Jerome J. Niedermeier, who issued a Report and Recommendation ("R & R") urging the district court to order interpleader and to enjoin Morrisville from further prosecuting its state court action. Judge Billings adopted the R & R without modification. Morrisville now appeals.
Under Rule 22, interpleader is proper if the party requesting it "is or may be exposed to double or multiple liability." Fed.R.Civ.P. 22(1). Rooted in equity, interpleader is a handy tool to protect a stakeholder from multiple liability and the vexation of defending multiple claims to the same fund. See generally Texas v. Florida, 306 U.S. 398, 406-08, 59 S.Ct. 563, 567-68, 83 L.Ed. 817 (1939); 7 Charles A. Wright, Arthur R. Miller & Mary K. Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1702, 1704, at 493-97, 500-03 (2d ed. 1986) [hereinafter Wright & Miller]. Accordingly, what triggers interpleader is "a real and reasonable fear of double liability or vexatious, conflicting claims...." Indianapolis Colts v. Mayor of Baltimore, 741 F.2d 954, 957 (7th Cir.1984) (collecting citations), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1052, 105 S.Ct. 1753, 84 L.Ed.2d 817 (1985).
As to the $1.8 million Stowe claims to have paid to MMWEC through Morrisville, MMWEC has a legitimate fear of having to pay the same claim twice. Stowe has already asserted its...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dist. Attorney of N.Y. Cnty. v. Republic of the Phil.
...from multiple liability and the vexation of defending multiple claims to the same fund." Washington Elec. Co–Op, Inc. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P.C. , 985 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir. 1993) (citations omitted). An interpleader is triggered by "a real and reasonable fear of double liability or .......
-
Weininger v. Castro
...from multiple liability and the vexation of defending multiple claims to the same fund." Washington Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P.C., 985 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.1993). "[W]hat triggers interpleader is `a real and reasonable fear of double liability or vexatious, conflicting......
-
Perlman v. Fid. Brokerage Servs. LLC
...Fidelity Brokerage Servs., LLC v. Bank of China, 192 F.Supp.2d 173, 177 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (citing Washington Elec. Coop. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P.C., 985 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir.1993)). Interpleader actions normally proceed in two stages: first, the court “determines whether the interpleade......
-
Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. Exlites Holdings Int'l, Inc.
...C.A. v. Interaudi Bank , 117 F.Supp.3d 474, 482 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (quotations omitted); see also Wash. Elec. Coop., Inc. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P.C. , 985 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir. 1993) ("Rooted in equity, interpleader is a handy tool to protect a stakeholder from multiple liability and th......
-
Navigating The Interpleader Process
...Ins. Co. v. Hamilton Steel Prods., Inc., 448 F.2d 501, 504 (7th Cir. 1971); Wash. Elec. Co-op., Inc. v. Paterson, Walke & Pratt, P.C., 985 F.2d 677, 679 (2d Cir. "[T]o support an interpleader action, the adverse claims need attain only 'a minimal threshold level of substantiality.'" Equitab......