Davis & Galm, LLC v. Neve

“[U]nder Oregon law, ‘the plaintiff’s concrete stake in the outcome must continue throughout the pendency of the case.’ [Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 469 (2006)]. If plaintiffs’ concrete stake in the outcome evaporates after initiation of the action, the case becomes moot and must be dismissed for want of justiciability. Id.”

Petitioners filed a collections suit on behalf of Respondent Neve against Respondent Fuller, one of Neve’s former clients. That suit resulted in a judgment against Fuller in the amount of $16,437.25, which was satisfied by a sale of Fuller’s real property. The funds were then deposited into Neve’s trust account with Petitioner. However, Fuller claimed that she made a separate arrangement with Neve to settle their dispute. Petitioner then filed this interpleader action, naming Neve and Fuller as defendants. Subsequently, Neve relinquished any claim to the disputed funds, and the trial court dismissed the interpleader action and ordered the funds returned to Fuller. Petitioners appealed, assigning error to the trial court’s dismissal. “[U]nder Oregon law, ‘the plaintiff’s concrete stake in the outcome must continue throughout the pendency of the case.’ [Couey v. Atkins, 357 Or 460, 469 (2006)]. If plaintiffs’ concrete stake in the outcome evaporates after initiation of the action, the case becomes moot and must be dismissed for want of justiciability. Id.” The Court reasoned that, because there were no longer competing claims to the funds, there was no longer the possibility of double liability as required for Petitioner to sustain standing in an interpleader action under Oregon Rule of Civil Procedure 31 A. Thus, the Court held the trial court’s dismissal of Petitioner’s case was not error. Affirmed.