Civ Pro Question Forum

[DwightSchruteFarms]

With regards to an Interpleader, why would anyone want to file using a Rule 22 ever in comparison to filing via 1335? 1335 has softer requirements to meet and if you cannot satisfy 1335, then you definitely cannot satisfy the requirements of Rule 22. Can someone clarify this for me? Thank you

[ChattTNdt]

I think you would use Rule 22 if you had complete diversity but not minimal diversity

[littlepiggie818]

Even though 1335 is easier to satisfy, sometime there might not be two or more adverse claimants, but there is complete diversity between the stakeholder and the claimant(s). Thus the parties can invoke Rule 22 instead of Section 1335 to satisfy SMJ.

[maf70]

I think you would use Rule 22 if you had complete diversity but not minimal diversity

TITCR.

[DwightSchruteFarms]

I cannot think of a situation where there are 2 D's and minimal diversity is not satisfied and complete diversity is...If there is just 1 D present, I can see how that works, but with 2 +, wouldn't you need all the D's to be from a different state for 1332, thus also satisfying Minimal Diversity, which just needs 2 of them to differ....

[dood]

tl; dr; 12(b)(6) is always credited, HTH

[ChattTNdt]

I cannot think of a situation where there are 2 D's and minimal diversity is not satisfied and complete diversity is...If there is just 1 D present, I can see how that works, but with 2 +, wouldn't you need all the D's to be from a different state for 1332, thus also satisfying Minimal Diversity, which just needs 2 of them to differ....

If P is from TX and there are 100 D's, all from CA, you have satisfied complete diversity but not minimal diversity.

[random5483]

Rule interpleader requires complete diversity but the amount in controversy does not need to be posted as a bond. Statutory interpleader requires minimal diversity but you have to place the amount in controversy as a bond. Generally, statutory interpleader requirements are easier to meet, but using rule interpleader is preferrable if you meet the stricter requirements since you don't have to front the money ahead of time.


Not sure if there were any other advantages and I am going off memory (won't be studying for civ pro for a few days).

I cannot think of a situation where there are 2 D's and minimal diversity is not satisfied and complete diversity is...If there is just 1 D present, I can see how that works, but with 2 +, wouldn't you need all the D's to be from a different state for 1332, thus also satisfying Minimal Diversity, which just needs 2 of them to differ....

If P is from TX and there are 100 D's, all from CA, you have satisfied complete diversity but not minimal diversity.

In your example minimal diversity is met. Anytime there is complete diversity you also have minimal diversity.

[ChattTNdt]

I cannot think of a situation where there are 2 D's and minimal diversity is not satisfied and complete diversity is...If there is just 1 D present, I can see how that works, but with 2 +, wouldn't you need all the D's to be from a different state for 1332, thus also satisfying Minimal Diversity, which just needs 2 of them to differ....

If P is from TX and there are 100 D's, all from CA, you have satisfied complete diversity but not minimal diversity.

In your example minimal diversity is met. Anytime there is complete diversity you also have minimal diversity.

My example was based on the assumption that we were talking about pure interpleader, where the stakeholder is not making a claim. In my example, all the claimants are from the same state, so you don't have two or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship. Please correct me if this is wrong, I'm going off memory as well.

[littlepiggie818]

I cannot think of a situation where there are 2 D's and minimal diversity is not satisfied and complete diversity is...If there is just 1 D present, I can see how that works, but with 2 +, wouldn't you need all the D's to be from a different state for 1332, thus also satisfying Minimal Diversity, which just needs 2 of them to differ....

If P is from TX and there are 100 D's, all from CA, you have satisfied complete diversity but not minimal diversity.

In your example minimal diversity is met. Anytime there is complete diversity you also have minimal diversity.

My example was based on the assumption that we were talking about pure interpleader, where the stakeholder is not making a claim. In my example, all the claimants are from the same state, so you don't have two or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship. Please correct me if this is wrong, I'm going off memory as well.

You are right. There has to be minimal diversity among the claimants to satisfy 1335. So in the above example, there is complete diversity between the stakeholder and the claimant, which is the original requirement for SMJ.