28 U.S.C. § 2361
Process and procedure
In any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader under section 1335 of this title, a district court may issue its process for all claimants and enter its order restraining them from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any State or United States court affecting the property, instrument or obligation involved in the interpleader action until further order of the court. Such process and order shall be returnable at such time as the court or judge thereof directs, and shall be addressed to and served by the United States marshals for the respective districts where the claimants reside or may be found.
Such district court shall hear and determine the case, and may discharge the plaintiff from further liability, make the injunction permanent, and make all appropriate orders to enforce its judgment.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 386
cases (107 in the last 5 years), 1949–2026 · leading case: Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. Exlites Holdings Int'l, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 460 (E.D.N.Y 2019).
Madison Stock Transfer, Inc. v. Exlites Holdings Int'l, Inc., 368 F. Supp. 3d 460 (E.D.N.Y 2019). “The interpleader statute provides for nationwide service of process, see 28 U.S.C. § 2361 (2012), and personal jurisdiction is not constitutionally unreasonable when necessary to vindicate the interstate system's interest in obtaining the most efficient resolution of…”
Guardian Life Ins. v. Gilmore, 45 F. Supp. 3d 310 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). “) As to the first and third forms of relief that Guardian requests, 28 U.S.C. § 2361 provides the following: In any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader under [ 28 U.”
Auto Parts Mfg. Mississippi, Inc. v. King Constr. of Houston, L.L.C., 782 F.3d 186 (5th Cir. 2015). “Second, the district court relied on 28 U.S.C. § 2361 , which *192 authorizes a district court to issue a permanent injunction in an interpleader action when it discharges a plaintiff from further liability.”
Hapag-Lloyd Aktiengesellschaft v. U.S. Oil Trading LLC, 814 F.3d 146 (2d Cir. 2016). “However, on the same day and the opposite coast, Hapag-Lloyd filed its Interpleader Complaint below and moved ex parte for an anti-suit injunction under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 . Understandably uneasy to act without notice to the defendants, the District Court held a hearing on…”
State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967). “In this context, the suits sought to be enjoined are squarely within the language of 28 U. S. C. § 2361 , which provides in part: "In any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader under section 1335 of this title, a district court may issue its process for…”
Vendo Co. v. Lektro-Vend Corp., 433 U.S. 623 (1977). “The Interpleader Act of 1926, 28 U. S. C. § 2361 , the Frazier-Lemke Act, 11 U.”
First Trust Corp. v. Brenda Fuston Petrey Bryant, Kay Hamlin, Intervening, 410 F.3d 842 (1st Cir. 2005). “§ 1397 ; and service of process, 28 U.S.C. § 2361 . The interpleader statute does not contain an attorney’s fee provision.”
Holland Am. Ins. Co. v. Succession of Shepherd J. Roy, the Union Bank & Cent. Pecan Shelling Co., Inc., 777 F.2d 992 (5th Cir. 1985). “It held that injunctive relief was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 and was necessary to effectuate its jurisdiction under 28 U.”
Acuity, A Mut. Ins. Co. v. Rex, LLC, 929 F.3d 995 (8th Cir. 2019). “See 28 U.S.C. § 2361 (allowing nationwide service of process).”
Glenclova Inv. Co. v. Trans-Resources, Inc., 874 F. Supp. 2d 292 (S.D.N.Y. 2012). “Interestingly, most of the parties have no interest in a federal court determination of the rights of the claimants to the Arie Share and Orly Trust Share proceeds; instead, they ask the Court to use the interpleader statute injunction power under 28 U.S.C. § 2361 to direct them…”
O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974). “(2) The Interpleader Act of 1936, 28 U. S. C. § 2361 , allowing federal courts to restrain prosecution of state court suits involving property involved in federal interpleader actions.”
New York Life Ins. Co. v. Connecticut Dev. Auth. & Minority Equity Capital Corp., & Rupert C. Sterling, 700 F.2d 91 (2d Cir. 1983). “New York Life immediately sought temporary injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2361 (1976), restraining all defendants, and particularly Sterling, from prosecuting any action “affecting the property involved in this interpleader action,” and sought a permanent injunction…”
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.