Methwold International Finance Co. v. Manfredonia

MEMORANDUM

Appellants, defendant-claimants below, appeal from the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a 28 U.S.C. § 1335 interpleader action brought by Methwold International Finance Company. The facts of this case are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , but we dismiss because appellants lack standing on appeal.

A party appealing a judgment must be able to satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing. Knisley v. Network Assocs., Inc., 312 F.3d 1123 , 1126 (9th Cir.2002). Constitutional standing requires that an appellant show that it is “likely, and not merely speculative, that a favorable decision will provide redress.” Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)).

Although we are sympathetic to the appellants’ predicament in this case, and understand the difficulties associated with bringing a separate suit against Methwold because it is a foreign company, a favorable decision would not provide any redress for the appellants’ alleged injuries. There are no funds to distribute because the proposed interpleader fund was not deposited with the…