United States District Court, D. Kansas
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
KATHRYN H. VRATIL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
February 2, 2018, One Gas, Inc. filed a Complaint In
Interpleader (Doc. #1) to discharge a liability of $137,
048.53 and determine the rights of three adverse claimants.
stakeholder may pursue two types of interpleader actions: (1)
a “rule interpleader” under Rule 22, Fed. R. Civ.
P., and (2) a “statutory interpleader” under 28
U.S.C. §§ 1335, 1397 and 2361. Here, plaintiff
filed the instant action as both a rule interpleader suit and
a statutory interpleader suit. Complaint In
Interpleader (Doc. #1), ¶¶ 5-6. For a federal
district court to have subject matter jurisdiction over a
statutory interpleader suit, the claim must meet the
following prerequisites: (1) the amount in controversy
exceeds $500; (2) two or more diverse claimants have adverse
claims of entitlement to the disputed fund; and (3) the
stakeholder deposits the amount due into the Court's
registry. 28 U.S.C. § 1335.
plaintiff's complaint sought leave to deposit the
disputed fund into the registry of the Court, it never filed
a motion under Rule 67, Fed. R. Civ. P., or D. Kan. Rule 67.1
to deposit the fund with the Court. Complaint In
Interpleader (Doc. #1) at 4, ¶ a; Fed.R.Civ.P. 67
(requiring leave from Court to deposit funds); D. Kan. Rule
67.1 (“Any party who seeks a court order for the
deposit of funds . . . must prepare a proposed order for the
[C]ourt and serve the same upon the clerk of this
court.”). Thus, to the extent plaintiff seeks to pursue
a statutory interpleader suit, the Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1335; see United
States v. Major Oil Corp., 583 F.2d 1152, 1157 (10th
Cir. 1978) (deposit jurisdictional requirement in statutory
“failure to make an immediate deposit of the correct
amount is not fatal to the statutory interpleader action;
courts readily allow the stakeholder to cure the defect by
depositing the appropriate stake or procuring a sufficient
bond within a reasonable time.” 4-22 Moore's
Federal Practice 3D § 22.04[b]; see United States
Life Ins. Co. in the City of New York v. Holtzman, No.
14-00113 FLW, 2014 WL 5149707, at *4 (D.N.J. Oct. 14, 2014);
Legacy Inv. & Mgmt., LLC v. Susquehanna Bank,
No. WDQ-12-2877, 2013 WL 5423919, at *5 (D. Md. Sept. 26,
2013). Accordingly, if plaintiff plans to continue this
action as a statutory interpleader suit, on or before
August 1, 2018, it must file a motion under Rule 67,
Fed. R. Civ. P., and D. Kan. Rule 67.1 to deposit the fund
into the Court's registry.
IS SO ORDERED.
 The Court may sua sponte
raise jurisdictional issues where necessary. Kontrick v.
Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 455 (2004). “If the court
determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter
jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3). Rule 12(h)(3) does not, however,
require dismissal here because the Court maintains diversity
subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
Complaint In Interpleader (Doc. #1), ¶ 6
(amount in controversy exceeds $75, 000 and plaintiff diverse
from all claimants).
Nevertheless, if plaintiff proceeds solely under Rule
22, it can no longer rely upon the “more liberal”
procedural rules of statutory interpleader actions which
affect venue, personal jurisdiction and service of process.
See 4-22 Moore's Federal Practice 3D §
22.04 (2018). For example, service pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 2361 would no longer establish personal jurisdiction
over all claimants. Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k)(1)(C) (when statute
authorizes, serving summons establishes personal
jurisdiction); 28 U.S.C. § 2361 (allowing nationwide
service in statutory interpleader actions). Accordingly, if
plaintiff proceeds solely under Rule 22, the Court may
revisit prior rulings or require plaintiff to make further
showings with respect to the out-of-state claimant: Bizfund.
In particular, the Court questions whether plaintiff's
allegations establish that the Court has personal
jurisdiction over Bizfund and whether plaintiff properly
served Bizfund. See 4-22 Moore's Federal
Practice 3D § 22.04[b] (in rule interpleader,
plaintiff must establish “(1) state law provides for
personal jurisdiction over [out-of-state claimants], (2) the
exercise of in personam jurisdiction is constitutional under
International Shoe Co. v. Washington, and (3) state
law provides for a method of out-of-state service”);
TH Agric. & Nutrition, LLC v. Ace European Group
Ltd., 488 F.3d 1282, 1286-87 (2007) (in diversity suit,
plaintiff must establish prima facie personal jurisdiction
over nonresident defendant); K.S.A. § 60-308 (Kansas
In sum, if plaintiff proceeds solely under Rule 22,
the Court will maintain subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff, however, will not be able to rely on the
procedural mechanisms of statutory interpleader suits, which
provide nationwide service that establishes personal
jurisdiction over out-of-state claimants. Thus, if this
action proceeds solely as a rule interpleader suit, the Court
may require further briefing ...