Statutory vs. Rule 22 Interpleader

The two kinds of federal interpleader differ mainly in how they reach federal court. Statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 requires $500 or more and at least two adverse claimants of diverse citizenship, the stakeholder must deposit the money or give a bond, and § 2361 allows nationwide service and an order restraining other lawsuits.¹² Rule 22 interpleader needs its own basis for jurisdiction, usually diversity under § 1332 (more than $75,000 and a stakeholder diverse from every claimant) or a federal question such as an ERISA benefit claim, and it uses ordinary service rules.³⁴

Why there are two kinds

Interpleader began as a remedy in courts of equity. Congress later created a special federal version in the Federal Interpleader Act, now codified mainly at 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335, 1397, and 2361, to deal with a recurring problem: a stakeholder could not get all of the claimants into one court if they lived in different states. Separately, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure include Rule 22, which lets interpleader be used as a form of pleading in any federal case that otherwise belongs in federal court.

Rule 22 says expressly that the two coexist. The remedy it provides “is in addition to—and does not supersede or limit—the remedy provided by 28 U.S.C. §§1335, 1397, and 2361,” and statutory actions are conducted under the Federal Rules.⁵

Side-by-side comparison

Statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335

Who may file and how much is required

Section 1335 gives federal district courts original jurisdiction over interpleader filed by “any person, firm, or corporation, association, or society” that has custody of money or property worth $500 or more, or that issued a note, bond, certificate, insurance policy, or other instrument worth $500 or more, or that is “under any obligation written or unwritten to the amount of $500 or more.”¹

Two adverse claimants of diverse citizenship

The statute requires that “[t]wo or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship” as defined in the general diversity statute “are claiming or may claim to be entitled” to the money or property.¹ Two features matter in practice:

• Only the claimants count. The stakeholder’s own citizenship is not part of the test.
• “Minimal” diversity is enough. In State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, the Supreme Court held that § 1335 requires only that at least two adverse claimants be citizens of different states, even if other claimants share citizenship, and that this is consistent with Article III of the Constitution. The traditional “complete diversity” requirement from Strawbridge v. Curtiss is a reading of the general diversity statute, not a constitutional rule.⁶

The claims also do not have to match. Under § 1335(b), an interpleader may be brought even though the claimants’ titles or claims “do not have a common origin, or are not identical, but are adverse to and independent of one another.”¹

The deposit requirement

Jurisdiction under § 1335 also depends on the stakeholder having “deposited such money or property” into the registry of the court, or having given a bond payable to the clerk “in such amount and with such surety as the court or judge may deem proper,” conditioned on complying with the court’s future orders.¹ Once deposited, the money is handled under the federal statutes governing court registry funds.⁷

Venue and service

A statutory interpleader “may be brought in the judicial district in which one or more of the claimants reside.”⁸ The court “may issue its process for all claimants,” served by the U.S. marshals “for the respective districts where the claimants reside or may be found.”² In practice, that means a stakeholder can bring claimants from several states into a single federal court.

Restraining other proceedings

Section 2361 also lets the court enter an order “restraining [claimants] 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,” and at the end of the case to “discharge the plaintiff from further liability, make the injunction permanent, and make all appropriate orders to enforce its judgment.”²

Rule interpleader under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22

What the rule allows

Rule 22(a)(1) provides that persons “with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead.” Joinder is proper even if the claims “lack a common origin or are adverse and independent rather than identical,” or if “the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.” A defendant facing similar exposure may seek interpleader “through a crossclaim or counterclaim.”⁹ That is how a beneficiary’s lawsuit against an insurer often becomes an interpleader. See When a claimant sues first.

Jurisdiction must come from elsewhere

Because Rule 22 is a procedural rule, it does not create federal jurisdiction. A Rule 22 case needs an ordinary basis for federal jurisdiction:

• Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, which requires an amount in controversy that “exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs,” and, under the long-standing complete-diversity rule, a stakeholder whose citizenship differs from every claimant’s.³
• Federal-question jurisdiction, for example when the money is a benefit under an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA. ERISA gives federal district courts jurisdiction over actions for relief under its civil-enforcement provision “without respect to the amount in controversy or the citizenship of the parties.”⁴

When § 1335 fails, § 1332 may still work. In Fifth Season Financial v. Parker (E.D. Va. 2017), the stakeholder deposited the disputed funds and was discharged. Months later, raising the issue on its own, the court dismissed the case because “all claimants are residents of, and therefore domiciled in, Virginia,” so the minimal diversity that § 1335 requires was missing. It ordered the money returned so the stakeholder could refile in state court, reasoning in a footnote that ordinary diversity jurisdiction would fail too, because the stakeholder, the only non-Virginia party, had been dismissed. The stakeholder, supported by one claimant, moved for reconsideration, pointing to the Fourth Circuit’s decision in Leimbach v. Allen, which held that “the dismissal of the stakeholder before final judgment does not destroy jurisdiction” under § 1332. The court vacated the dismissal and ordered the money redeposited in the court’s registry.¹⁰ A stakeholder that pleads both statutes keeps a fallback if the claimants all turn out to live in one state.

Deposits under Rule 67

Rule 22 does not itself require a deposit. A stakeholder that wants to pay the money into court does so under Rule 67, which allows a party, “on notice to every other party and by leave of court,” to deposit money “whether or not that party claims any of it.” Deposited money must be placed “in an interest-bearing account or invested in a court-approved, interest-bearing instrument.”¹¹

A deposit is not what gives the court jurisdiction in a Rule 22 case. In Farmers New World Life Insurance Co. v. Pearce (S.D. Cal. 2025), an insurer interpleaded two claimants to a life insurance death benefit. Its complaint relied on ordinary diversity jurisdiction, but its motion to deposit the money cited § 1335. The court noted that if both claimants were California citizens, as alleged, “§ 1335 is facially inapplicable because there is no diversity of citizenship amongst the adverse claimants,” leaving “just one viable mechanism” for the case: “Rule 22 interpleader.” It rejected the suggestion that depositing the death benefit was “a jurisdictional necessity,” because “a deposit is not a jurisdictional requirement to rule 22(1) interpleader,” and granted the deposit as a matter of its discretion under Rule 67, directing that the money be placed in an interest-bearing account. It also cautioned the insurer “against invoking any features of statutory interpleader unless the jurisdictional prerequisites of § 1335 are satisfied.” An earlier deposit request had been denied as premature because there was no indication the claimants had the notice Rule 67 requires.¹²

Stopping state-court cases

A Rule 22 case lacks the express statutory authority in § 2361. When a federal court is asked to halt a pending state-court proceeding, the federal Anti-Injunction Act applies; it bars such injunctions “except as expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its jurisdiction, or to protect or effectuate its judgments.”¹³ Section 2361 is an express authorization for statutory interpleader; in a Rule 22 case, any injunction against a state proceeding has to fit one of the other narrow exceptions.

Which route do stakeholders choose?

The choice usually follows the facts:

• Small funds, or claimants spread across states. Statutory interpleader is often the only federal option when the fund is $75,000 or less, and nationwide service helps when claimants live far apart.
• Claimants who all live in one state, different from the stakeholder’s. Rule 22 with ordinary diversity jurisdiction may fit, provided the amount exceeds $75,000. Statutory interpleader would not work if no two claimants are diverse from each other.
• ERISA plan benefits. Plan administrators and insurers often rely on federal-question jurisdiction, sometimes together with § 1335.
• No federal route. If neither works, the stakeholder can usually file interpleader in state court under that state’s rules.

Complaints frequently plead both routes in the alternative, and courts consider each.

Switching from § 1335 to Rule 22

A case filed under the statute can continue under the rule when the statute’s diversity test fails. In Everlake Assurance Co. v. Taylor, a 2025 life insurance case in the Western District of Oklahoma, the two adverse claimants were citizens of the same state, so there was no minimal diversity among them. On the insurer’s unopposed motion, the court converted the action to rule interpleader: “while the requirements for statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 are not satisfied due to the lack of diversity between defendants [the two claimants], the court retains subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because the plaintiff is diverse from the defendants and the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.” It then let the insurer deposit the proceeds under Rule 67.¹⁴

The difference showed up again at the discharge stage. Without § 2361 to rely on, the court grounded its permanent injunction in the Anti-Injunction Act’s exception for injunctions “necessary in aid of [the federal court’s] jurisdiction,” finding one “necessary here to protect the court’s jurisdiction and ensure that all claims to the policy proceeds are resolved in this single proceeding.”¹⁵ See the decision summary.

Footnotes

1. 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)–(b). Cornell LII. The cross-reference to “subsection (a) or (d) of section 1332” was added by the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109–2. ↩ ↩² ↩³ ↩⁴ ↩⁵

2. 28 U.S.C. § 2361. Cornell LII. ↩ ↩² ↩³

3. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Cornell LII. The complete-diversity rule traces to Strawbridge v. Curtiss, 7 U.S. (3 Cranch) 267 (1806), discussed in Tashire. ↩ ↩²

4. 29 U.S.C. § 1132(f); see also § 1132(e)(1). Cornell LII. ↩ ↩²

5. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(b). Cornell LII. ↩

6. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U.S. 523 (1967). Cornell LII. See the case summary. ↩

7. 28 U.S.C. §§ 2041, 2042; see also § 2045 (investment of court registry funds). See the guide to discharge, fees, and interest. ↩

8. 28 U.S.C. § 1397. Cornell LII. ↩

9. Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1)–(2). Cornell LII. ↩

10. Fifth Season Financial, L.P. v. Parker, No. 1:16-cv-1458 (LMB/MSN) (E.D. Va.): order dismissing for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, ECF No. 63 (Apr. 28, 2017), at 1–2 & n.1, court order (PDF); order vacating dismissal, ECF No. 68 (May 30, 2017), court order (PDF) (quoting Leimbach v. Allen, 976 F.2d 912, 917 (4th Cir. 1992)). An earlier order in the case sealed exhibits containing information protected by Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2 and required redacted copies, ECF No. 44 (Mar. 27, 2017). ↩

11. Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a)–(b). Cornell LII. ↩

12. Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. v. Pearce, No. 3:25-cv-01392-JLS-MSB (S.D. Cal.), order granting renewed motion to deposit interpleader funds, ECF No. 29 (Aug. 22, 2025), at 1, 3–4 (quoting Gelfgren v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 680 F.2d 79, 82 (9th Cir. 1982)), court order (PDF) (also on govinfo.gov (PDF)). ↩

13. 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Cornell LII. ↩

14. Everlake Assurance Co. v. Taylor, No. 5:25-cv-00359-HE (W.D. Okla.), order, ECF No. 15 (June 2, 2025), at 1. ↩

15. Everlake Assurance Co. v. Taylor, No. 5:25-cv-00359-HE (W.D. Okla.), order, ECF No. 24 (July 8, 2025), at 2–3. ↩