Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Manuk Akopyan ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FEB 16 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
WELLS FARGO BANK, N.A., No. 21-55280
Plaintiff-Appellee, D.C. No.
2:20-cv-07512-JFW-JPR
v.
MANUK AKOPYAN, MEMORANDUM*
Defendant-Appellant,
v.
ARIANNA ANI ZADOURIAN,
Defendant-Appellee,
v.
M & A LIFESTLYE, INC.,
Cross-defendant-Appellee,
and
MARA LIFESTYLE; PURE C, INC.,
Cross-defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
John F. Walter, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted February 14, 2022**
San Francisco, California
Before: SILER,*** S.R. THOMAS, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.
Manuk Akopyan and Arianna Zadourian became romantically involved and
formed M&A Lifestyle, Inc. (“M&A”) and other businesses to sell CBD, an active
ingredient in cannabis. When the relationship soured, Manuk sued Arianna in a
California court alleging that she was improperly ousting him from M&A. Wells
Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) commenced this federal action by filing an
interpleader action in the district court asserting that both Manuk and Arianna
claimed certain funds held by Wells Fargo. The district court determined that the
funds belonged to M&A and could be paid out to Arianna, the sole signatory on
the M&A accounts, and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Manuk’s state law claims. Manuk appeals, asserting that the district court should
not have granted summary judgment and should have stayed the proceedings under
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
***
The Honorable Eugene E. Siler, United States Circuit Judge for the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, sitting by designation.
2
the Colorado River doctrine.1 See Colo. River Water Conservation Dist. v. United
States, 424 U.S. 800 (1976). We affirm.
The district court’s grant of summary judgment is reviewed de novo, Altera
Corp. v. Clear Logic, Inc., 424 F.3d 1079, 1091 (9th Cir. 2005), and the evidence
is viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. S. Cal. Painters v.
Best Interiors, Inc., 359 F.3d 1127, 1130 (9th Cir. 2004). The district court’s
decision not to permit additional discovery prior to granting summary is reviewed
for abuse of discretion. Morton v. Hall, 599 F.3d 942, 945 (9th Cir. 2010). But
where, as here, the district court fails to address a request for additional discovery,
the omission is reviewed de novo. Margolis v. Ryan, 140 F.3d 850, 853 (9th Cir.
1998). “Whether the facts of a particular case conform to the requirements for a
Colorado River stay or dismissal is question of law which we review de novo. If
we conclude that the Colorado River requirements have been met, we then review
the district court’s decision for abuse of discretion. Montanore Mins. Corp. v.
Bakie, 867 F.3d 1160, 1165 (2017) (citations and internal quotation marks
omitted).
1. The general purpose of an interpleader action is to decide the priority of
competing claims to the interpleaded funds. Texaco, Inc. v. Ponsoldt, 118 F.3d
1
With the agreement of all parties, Wells Fargo was dismissed from the
action by the district court and is not a party to this appeal.
3
1367, 1369 (9th Cir. 1997). The district court found that M&A was the sole owner
of the funds, that Arianna opened the Wells Fargo accounts on behalf of M&A,
and that she was the only authorized signer for the accounts. Manuk does not
really contest any of these facts, but argues that he is a part owner of M&A and has
claims against Arianna. Manuk has not shown that the district court, having
properly determined that the funds belonged to M&A, was required to adjudicate
Manuk’s claims to M&A and against Arianna.
2. Although summary judgment is usually improper prior to the conclusion
of discovery, it is appropriate where discovery would be futile. Burlington N.
Santa Fe R.R. Co. v. Assiniboine & Sioux Tribes of Fort Peck Rsrv., 323 F.3d 767,
774 (9th Cir. 2003). Manuk sought to take depositions and subpoena M&A’s
accountants and other witnesses. But he has not shown that the discovery would
have changed the facts supporting the district court’s determination that the funds
held by Wells Fargo belonged to M&A. The district court did not err in failing to
delay the grant of summary judgment to allow for further discovery.
3. The Colorado River doctrine allows a federal court to stay federal court
proceedings out of deference to parallel litigation brought in state court. See
Coopers & Lybrand v. Sun-Diamond Growers of Cal., 912 F.2d 1135, 1138 (9th
Cir. 1990). The interpleader action and Manuk’s state action are not parallel
actions. The interpleader action seeks only a determination of the ownership of
4
certain funds held by Wells Fargo, while Manuk’s state action concerns his claims
to M&A and against Arianna. Moreover, the non-exclusive factors set forth in
Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 870 (9th Cir. 2002), do not support staying the
federal action. The district court reasonably declined to stay proceedings under the
Colorado River doctrine.
The district court’s grant of summary judgment is AFFIRMED.
5