Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08180/USCOURTS-azd-3_09-cv-08180-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Metropolitan Life Insurance Company, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Maria Probst; Mildred Lomerson; and

Lewis Lomerson, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-09-8180-PCT-DGC

ORDER

Plaintiff Metropolitan Life Insurance Company is the claim fiduciary for the General

Electric Group Life Insurance Plan (“Plan”), an employee benefit plan governed by the

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (“ERISA”).

Decedent Paula Wouters was a Plan participant who had a life insurance policy in the amount

of $8,404. Defendants Maria Probst, Mildred Lomerson, and Lewis Lomerson have

submitted competing claims to those insurance proceeds.

Plaintiff commenced this interpleader action by filing a complaint against Defendants

pursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #1. Plaintiff seeks, among

other things, a determination as to whom Decedent’s life insurance benefits are to be paid.

Id. at 6.

Plaintiff has filed a motion for leave to deposit funds with the Court and a motion for

order for issuance of process to Defendants and restraining them from initiating other actions.

Dkt. #3. For reasons that follow, the Court will deny the motion.

A party seeking to bring a federal interpleader action under Rule 22 must establish

Case 3:09-cv-08180-DGC Document 7 Filed 11/06/09 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

The Court notes that the civil cover sheet filed by Plaintiff indicates that subject

matter jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship. Dkt. #1-2. The complaint, by

contrast, asserts only federal question jurisdiction. Dkt. #1 ¶ 5.

2

A statutory interpleader action would be improper here as all Defendants are citizens

of Arizona (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 2-4). 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a) (requiring diversity of citizenship among

claimants); see Gelfgren, 680 F.2d at 81 n.1.

- 2 -

statutory jurisdiction. See Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Bayona, 223 F.3d 1030, 1033 (9th Cir.

2000). The Court has jurisdiction over this action because Plaintiff has sought appropriate

equitable relief under ERISA (Dkt. #1 ¶¶ 5, 22-25). See 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(3)(B)(ii),

(e)(1); 28 U.S.C. § 1331; see also Bayona, 223 F.3d at 1033; Gelfren v. Republic Nat’l Life

Ins. Co., 680 F.2d 79, 81 (9th Cir. 1982); Trustees of the IL WU-PMA Pension Plan v.

Peters, No. C 08-03136 JSW, 2009 WL 3075648, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2009).1

Plaintiff seeks leave to deposit the insurance proceeds into the registry of the Court

pursuant to Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Dkt. #3 at 1. That rule provides

that where any part of the relief sought is a sum of money, a party may deposit the money

with the court “on notice to every other party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 67(a). Defendants have not

appeared in this action, and Plaintiff has not otherwise shown that Defendants have been

provided with notice of the request to deposit funds. The Court will deny the motion for

leave to deposit funds.

Deposit of the disputed funds in the Court’s registry is a jurisdictional requirement to

a statutory interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335. The deposit of funds is not, however,

a jurisdictional requirement to a Rule 22 interpleader action, see Gelfgren, 680 F.2d at 81-82,

and is therefore not required in this case. See also Herman Miller, Inc. Retirement Income

Plan, No. 2:07-cv-00162-MCE-GGH, 2008 WL 2620748, at *2 (E.D. Cal. July 2, 2008).2

Plaintiff seeks, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2361, an order enjoining Defendants from

prosecuting claims to the insurance proceeds in any other court. Dkt. #3 at 2. Section 2361

applies only to statutory interpleader actions brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Because

Case 3:09-cv-08180-DGC Document 7 Filed 11/06/09 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

Plaintiff has brought a Rule 22 interpleader action, the Court must determine the propriety

of a restraining order by looking “to the standards of 28 U.S.C. § 2283, and [Rule] 65, and

not to those of statutory interpleader, 28 U.S.C. § 2361.” Life Insurance Co. of N. Am. v.

Thorngren, No. CV-04-464-S-BLW, 2005 WL 2387596, at *4 (D. Idaho Sept. 27, 2005).

Section 2283 provides that a federal court may stay proceedings in a state court only where

“expressly authorized by Act of Congress, or where necessary in aid of its judgment, or to

protect or effectuate its judgment.” 28 U.S.C. § 2283. Rule 65 provides for injunctive relief

only where the plaintiff shows that it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of

preliminary relief. Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(b); see Winter v. NRDC, --- U.S. ---, 129 S. Ct. 365,

374 (2008); see Am. Trucking Ass’n, Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009).

Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants have filed a duplicative action in another court or

that the threat of any such action is imminent. The Court will deny Plaintiff’s motion for a

restraining order. See Thorngren, 2005 WL 2387596, at *4 (“[T]he court may restrain a

party from filing a duplicative action only when there is an actual threat to either the

stakeholder or the proceedings currently before the court.”).

Plaintiff seeks, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2361, an order that “this Court may issue its

process directed to all Defendants” and that “such process shall be addressed to and

personally served where the claimants reside or may be found[.]” Dkt. #3 at 2. “[Section]

2361, the nationwide service of process statute, applies only to section 1335 interpleader

actions.” Cal. Pipe Recycling, Inc. v. Sw. Holdings, Inc., No. CV F 08-0236 LJO SMS, 2008

WL 4690533, at *7 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2008). Rule 22 interpleader actions “are subject to

the general rules of service of process and personal jurisdiction.” Id. The Court will deny

Plaintiff’s motion for order for issuance of process under section 2361.

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to deposit funds with the Court and

motion for order for issuance of process to Defendants and restraining them from instituting

or prosecuting actions regarding impleaded property (Dkt. #3) is denied.

DATED this 6th day of November, 2009.

Case 3:09-cv-08180-DGC Document 7 Filed 11/06/09 Page 3 of 3