28 U.S.C. § 1335

Interpleader

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader filed by any person, firm, or corporation, association, or society having in his or its custody or possession money or property of the value of $500 or more, or having issued a note, bond, certificate, policy of insurance, or other instrument of value or amount of $500 or more, or providing for the delivery or payment or the loan of money or property of such amount or value, or being under any obligation written or unwritten to the amount of $500 or more, if(1) Two or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship as defined in subsection (a) or (d) of section 1332 of this title, are claiming or may claim to be entitled to such money or property, or to any one or more of the benefits arising by virtue of any note, bond, certificate, policy or other instrument, or arising by virtue of any such obligation; and if (2) the plaintiff has deposited such money or property or has paid the amount of or the loan or other value of such instrument or the amount due under such obligation into the registry of the court, there to abide the judgment of the court, or has given bond payable to the clerk of the court in such amount and with such surety as the court or judge may deem proper, conditioned upon the compliance by the plaintiff with the future order or judgment of the court with respect to the subject matter of the controversy.(b) Such an action may be entertained although the titles or claims of the conflicting claimants do not have a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another.(June 25, 1948, ch. 646, 62 Stat. 931; Pub. L. 109–2, § 4(b)(1), Feb. 18, 2005, 119 Stat. 12.)Historical and Revision Notes

Based on title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., § 41(26) (Mar. 3, 1911, ch. 231, § 24, par. 26, as added Jan. 20, 1936, ch. 13, § 1, 49 Stat. 1096).

Words “civil action” were substituted for “suits in equity”; word “plaintiff” was substituted for “complainant”; and word “judgment” was substituted for “decree,” in order to make the language of this section conform with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

The words “duly verified” following “in the nature of interpleader,” near the beginning of the section, were omitted. Under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure pleadings are no longer required to be verified or accompanied by affidavit unless specially required by statute. Although verification was specially required by section 41(26) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., the need therefor is not apparent.

Provisions of section 41(26)(b) of title 28, U.S.C., 1940 ed., relating to venue are the basis of section 1397 of this title. (See, also, reviser’s note under said section.)

Subsections (c) and (d) of said section 41(26) relating to issuance of injunctions constitute section 2361 of this title. (See reviser’s note under said section.)

Subsection (e) of such section 41(26), relating to defense in nature of interpleader and joinder of additional parties, was omitted as unnecessary, such matters being governed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Changes were made in phraseology.

Editorial NotesAmendments

2005—Subsec. (a)(1). Pub. L. 109–2 inserted “subsection (a) or (d) of” before “section 1332”.

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2005 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 109–2 applicable to any civil action commenced on or after Feb. 18, 2005, see section 9 of Pub. L. 109–2, set out as a note under section 1332 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 1,391 cases (344 in the last 5 years), 1948–2026 · leading case: Tamarin Lindenberg v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Tamarin Lindenberg v. Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co., 912 F.3d 348 (6th Cir. 2018). · cites it 6× “Interpleader may be invoked either via Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“rule interpleader”) or via 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (“statutory interpleader”).”

Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720 (1977). · cites it 6× “Opponents of the Hanover Shoe rule have recognized this need for compulsory joinder in suggesting that the defendant could interplead potential claimants under 28 U. S. C. § 1335 . 19 But if the defendant, for any of a variety of reasons, 20 does not choose to interplead the…”

Guardian Life Ins. v. Gilmore, 45 F. Supp. 3d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). · cites it 7× “KARAS, District Judge: Plaintiff The Guardian Life Insurance Company (“Guardian”) brings this Inter-pleader Action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 , seeking, among other forms of relief, discharge from all liability in connection with a life-insurance policy (“the Policy”) that it issued…”

Fed. Ins. Co. v. TYCO Int'l, 422 F. Supp. 2d 357 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). · cites it 8× “§ 1441 (a); and (2) the Court does not have original jurisdiction over the Interpleader Action pursuant to the interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1335 , because Federal Insurance Company (“Federal”) has not deposited the amount in controversy into the registry of the court.”

Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85 (1982). · cites it 7× “The issue before us is whether the Federal Interpleader Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1335 , provides a jurisdictional basis for resolution of inconsistent death tax claims by the officials of two States.”

Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc. v. King Constr. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2015). · cites it 9× “In December 2012, the district court withdrew its remand, finding that APMM could have commenced the case in federal court under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 . The court directed APMM to redeposit the interpleader funds with the court, and APMM complied.”

First Trust Corp. v. Brenda Fuston Petrey Bryant, Kay Hamlin, Intervening, 410 F.3d 842 (1st Cir. 2005). · cites it 9× “First Trust invoked the court’s jurisdiction under the federal interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1335 , and the diversity statute, 28 U.”

AmGuard Ins. Co. v. SG Patel & Sons II LLC, 999 F.3d 238 (4th Cir. 2021). · cites it 10× “For the interpleader claim, AmGuard relied on 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (statutory interpleader), and for its declaratory judgment claim, it relied on 28 U.”

Repub. of Philippines v. Pimentel, 553 U.S. 851 (2008). · cites it 4× “Facing claims from various Marcos creditors, including the Pimentel class, Merrill Lynch instead filed an interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 . The named defendants in the interpleader action were, among others, the Republic and the Commission, Arelma, PNB, and the…”

State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967). · cites it 8× “Jurisdiction was predicated upon 28 U. S. C. § 1335 , the federal interpleader statue, [1] and upon general diversity *527 of citizenship, there being diversity between two or more of the claimants to the fund and between State Farm and all of the named defendants.”

Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. Ahrens, 414 F. Supp. 1235 (S.D. Tex. 1976). · cites it 24× “NATURE OF THE CASE A bill in the nature of interpleader has been filed in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 , § 1397 and § 2361 by Aetna Casualty and Surety Company (Aetna), All-Star Insurance Corporation (All-Star), International Insurance Company (International),…”

Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. Exlites Holdings Int'l, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 460 (E.D.N.Y 2019). · cites it 5× “("Zenlux") pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22, to have this Court resolve competing directions regarding the issuance and cancellation of Exlites stock.”

Show all 1,391 citing cases →

— 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a) — 1 case

Nixon v. Woodman of the World (10th Cir. 2024).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(1) — 2 cases

Rubinbaum LLP v. Related Corp. Partners V, 154 F. Supp. 2d 481 (S.D.N.Y. 2001).

Old Repub. Ins. Co. v. Christian, 389 F. Supp. 335 (E.D. Tenn. 1975).

— 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(2) — 2 cases

Bogosian v. Woloohojian Realty Corp., 973 F. Supp. 98 (D.R.I. 1997).

New York Life Ins. Co. v. Baker (S.D. Ohio 2020).

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.