A party may institute an interpleader action under either 28 U.S.C. § 1335 (“statutory interpleader”) or Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 (“rule interpleader”). Although both rule and statutory interpleader permit a plaintiff to join multiple claimants to a property, they have distinct “jurisdictional requirements.” Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Ellett, 2:14cv372, 2015 WL 500171, at *2 (E.D. Va. 2015). Statutory interpleader “requires (1) minimal diversity between ‘[t]wo or more adverse claimants,' (2) a value of $500 or more in controversy, and (3) a deposit in court by the plaintiff of the amount in dispute or a bond.
In Allstate Life Insurance Co. v. Ellett, the Court denied a motion for summary judgment premised on an argument that the defendant should receive the proceeds of a life insurance policy, as he had not been charged in the death of the insured. No. 2:14cv372, 2015 WL 500171, at *4 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2015). The District Court for the Western District of Virginia also addressed this issue in Hartford Life & Accident Insurance Co. v. King.
Once the interpleader plaintiff is discharged, the case then proceeds in the second stage “via normal litigation processes, including pleading, discovery, motions, and trial.” Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Ellett, Civil Action No. 2:14cv372, 2015 WL 500171, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2015). Thus, the lack of discovery in the case thus far, or Bittrex's use of declarations to support its motion for interpleader, is not improper.
Further, it takes little examination of the facts to see that they could support competing, colorable claims to the benefits.See Reliastar Life Ins., Co. v. Fitzpatrick, Civ. No. 15-1996, 2016 WL 9651766, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Sept. 29, 2016); see also Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Ellett, Civ. No. 14-372, 2015 WL 500171, at *3-6 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2015) (notwithstanding evidence advanced to suggest claimant "was not involved in the [Insured's] murder," the "evidence associated with the Insured's death" and an "absence of evidence detailing events preceding her stabbing" put the insurance company "in a position where it legitimately fear[ed] not just potential conflicting claims, but actual, and colorable, conflicting claims"). Here, although Soule had not filed a claim for the Insured's benefits at the time that Prudential filed the Interpleader Complaint, she had previously "requested" that the Slayer Statute be applied against her father in another probate action.
And finally, there are no alleged facts raising equitable concerns that militate against the use of interpleader here: the Decedent died in January [DE-1 ¶ 6], Defendants' competing beneficiary claims were filed in February [DE-1-6-8], and Plaintiff's interpleader suit was filed in March [DE-1] of this year. See Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Ellett, Civil Action No: 2:14cv372, 2015 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13526, at *4 n.2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2015) ("Equitable concerns include whether the plaintiff has acted in bad faith or delayed unreasonably in bringing the interpleader action."). Accordingly, all five Midland considerations militate in Plaintiff's favor.
Finally, there are no equitable concerns preventing the use of interpleader because Plaintiff attests that it is a disinterested and impartial stakeholder to the Restrained Funds, and it makes no claim to those Funds. See Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Ellett, Case No. 2:14CV372, 2015 WL 500171, at *4 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2015) (noting that plaintiff was "a disinterested stakeholder that does not dispute the amount owed under the relevant insurance policy, and is timely asserting, in good faith, that it is unable to determine which claimant is legally entitled to such funds" and finding interpleader to be appropriate). Accordingly, the requirements for an interpleader action have been met.
.Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Ellett, No. 2:14cv372, 2015 WL 500171, at *2 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2015). "By contrast, rule interpleader . . . is a procedural device only, and jurisdiction must therefore be proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (federal question jurisdiction) or § 1332 (diversity jurisdiction)."
See FCF No. 16-3. Finally, there are no equitable concerns preventing the use of interpleader. M&T attests that it is a disinterested and impartial stakeholder to the Funds that makes no claim to the funds. Allstate Life Ins. Co. v. Ellett, No. 2:14CV372, 2015 WL 500171, at *4 (E.D. Va. Feb. 4, 2015) (noting that plaintiff was "a disinterested stakeholder that does not dispute the amount owed under the relevant insurance policy, and is timely asserting, in good faith, that it is unable to determine which claimant is legally entitled to such funds" and finding interpleader to be appropriate). Accordingly, the requirements for an interpleader action have been met.