OCEAN CITY — In the latest of what will likely be months of legal wrangling in the federal lawsuit that could ultimately strip the first-place winner in the 2016 White Marlin Open of his record $2.8 million payout, the second-place winner in the tuna division this week filed a motion to send the case back to Worcester County Circuit Court.
In late August, White Marlin Open (WMO) officials announced a potential rules violation that could disqualify the winner in the white marlin division, a 76-pounder caught by angler Phillip Heasley on the Kallianassa out of Naples, Fla. Heasley’s marlin was the only qualifier in the division and was to receive a tournament-record $2.8 million in prize money.
However, about two weeks after the tournament, WMO officials announced possible rules violations regarding the timing of the catch and that Heasley and three other individuals on the Kallianassa, including the captain and the two mates, had been deceptive in their answers to some of the questions during the requisite post-tournament polygraph exams.
In late August, WMO officials field a Complaint for Interpleader in Worcester County Circuit Court, essentially asking a judge to decide first if there were rules violations and second, if there were violations, how best should the $2.8 million in prize money be distributed to the winners in other categories. However, earlier this month at Heasley’s request, the case was removed from Worcester County Circuit Court and moved instead to U.S. District Court where it could be heard by a federal judge.
Heasley requested the move to federal court over diversity issues related to the parties in the case, which is the standard for interpleader actions. Because Heasley, the principal defendant in the case, is a Florida resident, he believes the suit should more appropriately be heard in federal court. However, the second-place winner in the tuna division, angler Mark Hutchinson on the Magic Moment, this week filed a motion seeking to remand the case back to Worcester County Circuit Court. Hutchinson, a Maryland resident, contends the plaintiff in the case, the WMO, is a Maryland corporation and many of the other named “defendants,” or the winners in other categories that stand to gain a share of the prize money, are also Maryland residents.
Hutchinson asserts in his motion Heasley’s attempt to move the case to federal court over alleged diversity issues is essentially a ploy to move the case out of Worcester County Circuit Court. The motion asserts once the named parties in the case are appropriately realigned, the suit must be heard in Worcester County.
“Heasley has asserted that he should be designated as a defendant in this lawsuit, which is an effort to manipulate realignment of the parties and manufacture federal jurisdiction,” the motion to remand reads. “This should not be permitted. This is a dispute between Heasley and the WMO as to the application of the tournament rules and as to whether or not he should have been disqualified. This case has not been properly removed in accordance with federal law and should be remanded back to the Circuit Court for Worcester County.”
Again, Hutchinson’s motion to remand the case to Worcester County asserts Heasley’s attempt to move it to federal court is not allowed because many of the principal parties in the case are Maryland residents.
“An interpleader action under state law cannot be removed to the federal district court in the absence of complete diversity among the parties,” the motion reads. “Additionally, an action cannot be removed on the basis of diversity if any party in interest properly joined and served as a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the action was brought.”
A federal court judge could realign the parties through several different scenarios. As it stands now, the WMO is the plaintiff, and Heasley and the winners in other categories are listed as defendants. A federal judge could reverse that and make Heasley and the other winners the plaintiff and the WMO as the defendant.
“Once the appropriate court realigns the parties, Heasley will be the plaintiff with a claim against the WMO for breach of contract and the WMO will be aligned as a defendant,” the motion to remand reads. “Heasley has been disqualified from the tournament and he seeks to alter the distribution of the prize money proposed by the WMO in its complaint. However, it should be left to the Circuit Court for Worcester County to align the parties.”
Hutchinson’s motion asserts the other named defendants, the winners in other categories, are essentially on the sideline waiting to see if and how the prize money would be redistributed. Certainly, it’s a substantial interest, but the other winners don’t share any burden of proof, according to the motion.
“It would make no logical sense to realign the existing defendants other than Heasley as plaintiffs because they do not seek to disturb the WMO’s disqualification of Heasley,” the motion reads. “It should be Heasley’s burden to demonstrate his entitlement to the prize money despite his failure to comply with the rules and regulations.”