govinfo:USCOURTS-laed-2_23-cv-03392-3

1 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA 
 
PAUL GALLAND, ET AL. CIVIL ACTION 
 
VERSUS NO. 23-3392 
 
HARVEY GULF INTERNATIONAL SECTION: D (5) 
MARINE, LLC, ET AL. 
ORDER AND REASONS 
 Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Reurged Motion for Leave to Deposit Disputed 
Funds into the Registry of the Court Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 67, filed by Plaintiff 
Brennan Cubbedge.1 Also before the Court is Plaintiff’s Reurged Motion for Leave to 
Deposit Disputed Funds into the Registry of the Court Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 67, 
filed by Plaintiff Paul Galland.
2 Plaintiffs seek to deposit funds “ claimed by The 
Guardian Life Insurance Company of America (‘Guardian’) as reimbursement of 
certain long-term disability benefits paid.”3 Plaintiffs dispute Guardian’s entitlement 
to these funds.4 
 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 67(a) provides: 
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. 
 
1 R. Doc. 209. 
2 R. Doc. 210. 
3 R. Doc. 209 at p. 1; R. Doc. 210 at p. 1. Guardian is not a named party in the above-captioned matter. 
Plaintiffs advise that “[d]uring the pendency of Plaintiff[s ’] disability, Guardian paid long -term 
disability benefits to Plaintiff [s] pursuant to a group policy provided to [them] by Harvey Gulf 
International Marine as an employment benefit for which Plaintiff[s] paid certain premiums.” R. Doc. 
209 at p. 2; R. Doc. 210 at p. 2. According to Plaintiffs, Guardian now asserts that it is entitled to 
reimbursement of $49,516.74 in benefits paid for Brennan Cubbedge and $70,380.74 in benefits paid 
for Paul Galland. R. Doc. 209 at p. 2; R. Doc. 210 at p. 2. 
4 R. Doc. 209 at pp. 1–2; R. Doc. 210 at pp. 1–2. 

2 
 
The depositing party must deliver to the clerk a copy of the order 
permitting deposit.5 
 
“The purpose of a deposit under Rule 67 is to relieve the depositor of responsibility 
for the money or thing in dispute while the parties litigate their differences with 
respect to the res.”6 “Whether Rule 67 relief should be available in any particular case 
is a matter committed to the sound discretion of the district court.”7 
Initially, the Court notes that, by its very words, Rule 67(a) applies to “relief 
sought” and then orders that “a party—on notice to every other party . . . .”8 Plaintiffs 
Paul Galland and Brennan Cubbedge named Harvey Gulf International Marine, 
LLC, HGIM Corp., and Harvey Energy, LLC as defendants in this matter.
9 Guardian 
was not a named defendant, nor was Guardian a party to the lawsuit in any other 
manner. Again, the Fifth Circuit has stated that the purpose of Rule 67 is “to relieve 
the depositor of responsibility for the fund in dispute while the parties hash out their 
differences with respect to it.”
10 The parties in this matter litigated their difference. 
Now, Plaintiffs seemingly seek to deposit funds in this Court while they litigate a 
matter with Guardian, who was not a named party to this matter. 
On February 9, 2026, the Court issued an Order of Dismissal in this matter, 
dismissing the above -captioned matter with prejudice pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 
 
5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a). 
6 In re Craig’s Stores of Texas, Inc., 402 F.3d 522, 530 (5th Cir. 2005)(Dennis, J., concurring in part , 
but otherwise dissenting). 
7 Cajun Elec. Power Co -op., Inc. v. Riley Stoker Corp. , 901 F.2d 441, 445 (5th Cir. 1990)(citing Gulf 
States Utilities Co. v. Alabama Power Co., 824 F.2d 1465, 1474–75 (5th Cir. 1987)). 
8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a). 
9 R. Doc. 1 at ¶ 2. 
10 Cajun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 901 F.2d 444–45 (emphasis added). 

3 
 
41(a)(2).11 Despite the parties’ request,12 the Court explicitly did not “ maintain the 
exclusive jurisdiction to determine any disputes that may arise regarding the 
validity, interpretation, performance, breach or enforcement of the ‘Receipt, Release 
and Indemnity Agreement’ that was voluntarily executed by the parties in connection 
with the settlement of all of Plaintiff’s claims in this matter ”13 in its Order of 
Dismissal.14 Plaintiffs ask the Court to allow the funds to be deposited into the 
Court’s registry “to preserve the disputed funds and permit the Court to determine 
whether Guardian has any legal entitlement to reimbursement.” 15 Accordingly, the 
Court must have an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate 
Plaintiffs’ dispute against Guardian. 16 Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that an 
independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction over their dispute with Guardian 
exists.17 
 
11 R. Doc. 203. 
12 In a Joint Motion and Order of Dismissal with Prejudice, Plaintiffs and Defendants requested that 
the Court “maintain the exclusive jurisdiction to determine any disputes that may arise regarding the 
validity, interpretation, performance, breach or enforcement of the ‘Receipt, Release and Indemnity 
Agreement’ that was voluntarily executed by the parties in connection with the settlement of all of 
Plaintiff’s claims in this matter.” R. Doc. 202 at p. 1. 
13 R. Doc. 202 at p. 1. 
14 See R. Doc. 203. Importantly, the Court is not making a determination that, even if it had included 
that language, that such language alone would have provided a basis for it to adjudicate Plaintiffs’ 
dispute with Guardian. Again, this was not the dispute at issue before the Court and Guardian was 
not a party to the issue that was before the Court. 
15 R. Doc. 210 at p. 3. 
16 See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America, 511 U.S. 375, 381–82 (1994)(“When the dismissal 
is pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2) . . . the parties' compliance with the terms of 
the settlement contract (or the court's ‘retention of jurisdiction’ over the settlement contract) may, in 
the court's discretion, be one of the terms set forth in the order . . . . Absent such action, however, 
enforcement of the settlement agreement is for state courts, unless there is some independent basis 
for federal jurisdiction.”). 
17 See R. Docs. 209 and 210. Counsel advises that they filed the instant Motions to comply with their 
obligations under the Louisiana Rules of Professional Conduct. See R. Docs. 209 and 210. Counsel has 
other avenues to continue to uphold their ethical obligations. 

4 
 
Moreover, Plaintiffs’ reliance on Schafer Group, Ltd. V. Dep’t of Treasury18 and 
American Gulf VII v. Otto Candies 19 is misplaced. Schafer Group, Ltd. was an 
interpleader action where the funds being disputed were between the parties in the 
case.20 Further, the Court in Schafer Group, Ltd. noted that the non- moving party 
“filed no opposition” to depositing the funds at issue into the registry of the Court.21 
In similar vein, the funds disputed in American Gulf VII were also between the 
parties in the case.22 Addressing the opposition to a Motion to Tender Funds into the 
Registry of the Court, that Court provided that: 
The gravamen of the opposition to the motion is that a Motion for New 
Trial was pending at the time the instant motion was filed, and thus the 
motion was “premature and this offer does not include all sums owed.” 
However, as the Motion for New Trial has been resolved, these reasons 
are without force.
23 
 
The funds seemingly at issue now are funds being disputed by a non- party, and the 
Court thus exercises its discretion in determining that relief under Fed. R. Civ. P. 
67(a) is inappropriate. 
Accordingly, 
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Reurged Motion for Leave to 
Deposit Disputed Funds into the Registry of the Court Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 
67,
24 filed by Plaintiff Brennan Cubbedge, is DENIED. 
 
18 Schafer Group, Ltd. v. Department of Treasury, I.R.S., Civil Action No. 09–7675, 2012 WL 1069162, 
at *1 (E.D. La. Mar. 29, 2012)(Berrigan, J.). 
19 American Gulf VII, Inc. v. Otto Candies, Inc., Nos. Civ. A. 94–3905, Civ. A. 95–1666, 1998 WL 32763, 
at *1 (E.D. La. Jan. 29, 1998)(Duval, J.). 
20 Schafer Group, Ltd., 2012 WL 1069162, at *1. 
21 Id. at *4. 
22 American Gulf VII, 1998 WL 32763, at *1. 
23 Id. 
24 R. Doc. 209. 

5 
 
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Reurged Motion for Leave to 
Deposit Disputed Funds into the Registry of the Court Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 
67,25 filed by Plaintiff Paul Galland, is DENIED. 
New Orleans, Louisiana, June 5, 2026. 
 
 
______________________________ 
WENDY B. VITTER 
United States District Judge 
 
 
 
 
 
25 R. Doc. 210. 

Passage view · GavelSight