Hey grace, I love your blog! I found this in a Flemings outline, hope it helps: ( it sounds like getting all the fuckers together and joining them in a property dispute so they dont kill each others asses trying to sue one another)Interpleader is a joinder device by which a person holding propertywho may be subject to inconsistent claims on that property can join all the claimants in one interpleader action and require them to litigate among themselves to determine who has a right to the property.
Yeah, basically the person holding on to the 'fund' the stakeholder doesn't know who the fund should go to, so rather than allowing everyone to sue him for it, he joins all people that could possibly have a claim to it in one litigation. Think of it as an efficiency joinder in a sense.
Also, there is a difference between statutory interpleader and the FRCP. (Statutory is three statutes playing nice, though I'm fucked if I remember one of them).I think the difference has to do (in part) with the amount being held in dispute. And you can get around a whole lot of the other FRCP requirements about service of process and jurisdiction and shit. Working form memory -- my civ pro final was months ago after all.
Yeah, why I might not pass:When I look at my interpleader info, I think, "that's dumb. That never happens. I'm not bothering with that."Oops.
Um, maybe an example would be helpful b/c I personally didn't understand what was said above and I thought I had a grasp on the concept. This is how I understood from something I experienced at work. There's some possibly interesting crazy ass facts but in the end should explain how interpleader comes in. Consider it a sick form of entertainment.So, A and B sue Big Bad Company - shareholder derivative suit. The litigation goes on for years. A was actually suing on behalf of him and his wife's family trust, which held title to the stock. Few months after litigation begins A has mid-life crisis and leaves his wife of 20+ years to shack up with younger skank. A and A's wife in a hurry and not speaking to each other (obviously) hire crappy divorce attorneys. Crappy divorce attorneys totally ignore that the stock (which is the basis for the litigation) is held by a trust and no mention of it is in the divorce agreement. Years pass, A has married younger skank and moved to midwestern state (from CA). A dies intestate under suspicious circumstances (labeled suicide - but we don't know). Battle ensues between A's kids (in there 20s) and younger Skank Wife over A's estate.Meanwhile, original securites litigation A & B initiated against Big Bad Company heats up again. Litigation settles in the Millions of $$. Younger Skank Wife prevents A's (the trust's) portion of settlement funds from being released to Ex Wife (the other trustee) saying A's estate is entitled. No bitch, it belongs to the Trust (which survived divorce action). Ex Wife (on behalf of Trust) sues Younger Skank Wife for various torts related to blocking the release of funds. And here we go:Law firm representing A & B files interpleader in the Ex Wife v. YSW lawsuit because they are a stakeholder in the litigation - i.e. they have the settlement money and are owed a contingency fee for the litigation. They are a necessary party not because of anything they did but simply because their asses control the $$. After filing interpleader, they post a bond and wait for the court to order them to do something w/ the $$.Dunno if that helps, but I'm checking off civ pro for the night. Good night and good luck.
If you get an interpleader question, just pull down your pants and give those Illinois Bar Examiners a good ole fashioned Cleveland Steamer.
"Last call at the Bar" must write questions for the Illinois State Bar Examiners. WTF!! Oh, yesh, dude ... that clarifies things. Thanks!
Actually, thanks everybody. The thing I wasn't understanding was that the person suing doesn't have an interest in the stake. And I think I would prefer questioins on the bar that used the phrase young skank wife ("YSW").
i just snorted reading about the young skank wife
Q: May an interpleading party come in under the minimal diversity requirements of 28 USC 1335 and in essence, force all other litigants against the interpleading party to come into or through that court?Q: On the face of any statute, is there authority to do this? A: Yes. On the face of 1335, it appears that the authority is there. But in State Farm, the court distinguishes between cases:Q: When will 28 USC 1335 be used to force all litigants into this court and when will it not? A1: Case cites 2361 that gives court the authority to get all litigants involved, but distinguishes this case because it presses so many parties into the federal court case – the litigant trying to do this has a pretty small stake in the claim and the court says it’s not OK for the tail to wag the dog.A2: Wren: In a situation in which the interpleader funds are the total amount of funds that will be available ever for all potential Plaintiffs – it is appropriate to bring in all potential litigants trying to get a piece of that fund. ASK: is the one insurance policy talked about in State Farm the only policy (fund) available for all actions/claimants arising out of the transaction/occurrence? NO. This isn’t the main fund – it’s just a one small piece of the dog. You could have, under 1335, one federal court ordering all litigants into one action – but not under these circumstances.
INTERPLEADER is throwing a party & dragging multiple parties there b/c you want them to bring their issues all at the same time.Difference b/w diversity jurisdiction in rule diversity & statutory diversity:Rule Interpleader does not confer jurisdiction � does not have its own SMJ requirements, FRCP 22 does. Rule Interpleader: FRCP 22 requires complete diversity & amount in controversy less than $75K.Statute Interpleader � �1335 requires only minimal diversity b/w claimants (claimants - people on the same side, not like Rule Interpleader where adverse parties must be diverse. That's all.
Post a Comment