Rule 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. vs. 28 U.SC. § 1335 Forum

[Ikki]

If I am a P that really wants to bring a controversy in a federal court, why would I ever invoke Rule 22?
The deposit required under 1335 notwithstanding.

[vanwinkle]

If I am a P that really wants to bring a controversy in a federal court, why would I ever invoke Rule 22?
The deposit required under 1335 notwithstanding.

It's been a while for me, but I think that § 1335 only applies to diversity actions for the few circumstances that fit the statute, while Rule 22 allows interpleader for any diversity action that meets the jurisdictional requirements of § 1332 (over $75,000, complete diversity).

[Ikki]

Actually, 1335 requires minimal diversity. I just can't figure out why you would want to sue under a rule that requires complete diversity, when you have an easier to fulfill requirement with 1335.

[vanwinkle]

Actually, 1335 requires minimal diversity. I just can't figure out why you would want to sue under a rule that requires complete diversity, when you have an easier to fulfill requirement with 1335.

Might be a venue thing. Under 28 USC § 1397, only a court in the district where a claimant resides is a proper venue. If you use Rule 22 in a § 1332 diversity action, then the normal venue rules for diversity apply, and you can have other options for venue (for example, it may be possible to bring suit in the stakeholder's district).

[Ikki]

Thanks, that makes sense.

[ahduth]

This may raise the question of why one would opt to proceed under the Rule rather than under the Federal Interpleader Act. The answer lies in the differing requirements of the two interpleaders. There are circumstances in which a case cannot satisfy the requirements of statutory interpleader but can satisfy those of rule interpleader. For example, if the stakeholder is a resident of one state and all of the claimants reside in another state, the minimal diversity required by 28 U.S.C. s 1335 is unattainable, though the complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. s 1332 (1994) is present. Other things being equal, a litigant would probably prefer to proceed under statutory interpleader because its service-of-process provisions are more lenient (nationwide service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 2361 (1994) versus the customary geographical restrictions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4), the venue provisions are easier to satisfy (compare 28 U.S.C. s 1397 (1994) (statutory interpleader) with 28 U.S.C. s 1391 (1994) (rule interpleader)), the amount-in-controversy requirement is less ($500 for statutory interpleader, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1335 (1994), versus in excess of $50,000 for rule interpleader, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1332 (1994)), and the diversity requirement can often be easier to satisfy (any diversity among the claimants satisfies statutory interpleader's requirements pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1335 (1994), whereas rule interpleader requires complete diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1332 (1994)). But other things are not always equal.

Donald L. Doernberg, What's Wrong with This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, the Anti-Injunction Act, in Personam Jurisdiction, and M.C. Escher, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551, 596 (1996)

(I am NOT bluebooking that for you.)

[Ikki]

This may raise the question of why one would opt to proceed under the Rule rather than under the Federal Interpleader Act. The answer lies in the differing requirements of the two interpleaders. There are circumstances in which a case cannot satisfy the requirements of statutory interpleader but can satisfy those of rule interpleader. For example, if the stakeholder is a resident of one state and all of the claimants reside in another state, the minimal diversity required by 28 U.S.C. s 1335 is unattainable, though the complete diversity required by 28 U.S.C. s 1332 (1994) is present. Other things being equal, a litigant would probably prefer to proceed under statutory interpleader because its service-of-process provisions are more lenient (nationwide service pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 2361 (1994) versus the customary geographical restrictions of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4), the venue provisions are easier to satisfy (compare 28 U.S.C. s 1397 (1994) (statutory interpleader) with 28 U.S.C. s 1391 (1994) (rule interpleader)), the amount-in-controversy requirement is less ($500 for statutory interpleader, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1335 (1994), versus in excess of $50,000 for rule interpleader, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1332 (1994)), and the diversity requirement can often be easier to satisfy (any diversity among the claimants satisfies statutory interpleader's requirements pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1335 (1994), whereas rule interpleader requires complete diversity pursuant to 28 U.S.C. s 1332 (1994)). But other things are not always equal.

Donald L. Doernberg, What's Wrong with This Picture?: Rule Interpleader, the Anti-Injunction Act, in Personam Jurisdiction, and M.C. Escher, 67 U. Colo. L. Rev. 551, 596 (1996)

(I am NOT bluebooking that for you.)

[gonzonater]

Gahh sometimes this site is just too good to be true...I missed this class and I couldn't wrap my head around this same thing. Lesson learned: Skip class, TLS is here for you!