Federal Case

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that “a deposit is not a 7 jurisdictional requirement to [R]ule 22[(a)](1) interpleader . . . and thus was not required 8 here”
• stating that although statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 required the funds to be deposited with the court, FRCP 22 interpleader did not
• stating that “for the interpleader to be proper under [R]ule 22[(a)](1) it must be 18 within some statutory grant of jurisdiction”
• stating that although statutory interpleader under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 required the funds to be deposited with the court, FRCP 22 interpleader did not
• where plaintiff's state court action was properly removed, federal court had jurisdiction over defendant's cross-complaint for Rule 22 interpleader
• where plaintiff's state court action was properly removed, federal court had jurisdiction over defendant's cross-complaint for Rule 22 interpleader

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).