Western Surety Company v. Alabama Credit Union et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
WESTERN SURETY COMPANY, etc., 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) CIVIL ACTION 24-0085-WS-MU
)
ALABAMA CREDIT UNION, et al., 	)
)
Defendants. 	)
ORDER
The plaintiff has filed a complaint for interpleader. (Doc. 1). Interpleader in
federal court can be either by rule or by statute. The complaint does not identify which
fount the plaintiff invokes. However, it appears from the complaint that rule interpleader
is unavailable. Interpleader under Rule 22 requires a traditional fount of subject matter
jurisdiction. Perkins State Bank v. Connolly, 632 F.2d 1306, 1310 n.3 (5th Cir. 1980);
accord Lummis v. White, 629 F.2d 397, 400-01 (5th Cir. 1980), rev’d on other grounds
sub. nom Cory v. White, 457 U.S. 85 (1982). The complaint identifies no federal
question for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and the amount in controversy ($50,000) is
too low to sustain diversity jurisdiction under Section 1332.
Statutory interpleader requires: (1) at least $500 in controversy; (2) minimal
diversity between at least two of the adverse claimants; and (3) an appropriate deposit
into the registry of the Court. 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a). The first two requirements appear to
be satisfied, but the plaintiff has made no deposit, even though the action was filed
almost a month ago. “[T]he deposit requirement is a jurisdictional prerequisite to suit
under the interpleader statute ….” Murphy v. Travelers. Insurance Co., 534 F.2d 1155,
1159 (5th Cir. 1976).
“Courts have an independent obligation to determine whether subject-matter
jurisdiction exists, even when no party challenges it.” Hertz Corp. v. Friend, 559 U.S.

2
77, 94 (2010). Because, “once a federal court determines that it is without subject matter
jurisdiction, the court is powerless to continue,” it “should inquire into whether it has
subject matter jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings.” University of
South Alabama v. American Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999).
For the reasons set forth above, the plaintiff is ordered to satisfy the requirements
for statutory interpleader jurisdiction on or before April 30, 2024, failing which this
action will be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of April, 2024.
s/ WILLIAM H. STEELE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE