Indeed, this Court has issued many restraining orders against in rem and in personam claims around the world with respect to the various O.W. Bunker related interpleader actions before it. While this action has been filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 22, the equitable concerns are identical to those already considered by this Court. See 14-cv-9262 (S.D.N.Y.) (VEC) (D.E. 69) at 24, n.10.

While this action has been filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 22, the equitable concerns are identical to those already considered by this Court. See 14-cv-9262 (S.D.N.Y.) (VEC) (D.E. 69) at 24, n.10.

Indeed, this Court has issued many restraining orders against in rem and in personam claims around the world with respect to the various O.W. Bunker related interpleader actions before it. While this action has been filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 22, the 3 This amount of security (100% of the O.W. Bunker invoice plus 6% interest for one year) has been approved as adequate security in at least 24 cases involving ING as assignee of O.W. claims and various fuel suppliers including Chemoil.

This concept is enshrined in Rule 22, which provides that interpleader is proper “even though . . . the plaintiff denies liability in whole or in part to any or all of the claimants.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(1)(B). See also First Interstate Bank of Oregon, N.A. v. U.S., 891 F. Supp. 543, 546 (D. Ore. 1995) (A “stakeholder, acting in good faith, may maintain a suit in interpleader to avoid the vexation and expense of resisting adverse claims, even though he believes only one of them is meritorious.”)

Thus, while the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) were certainly met at the outset of this action—because Transamerica (an Iowa citizen) sued Mrs. Bagala and the Bagala Children (all Louisiana citizens), seeking a declaration of “the rights and/or other legal relations of” all parties (including Transamerica) “to the ownership and/or proceeds of the Policy,” see R. Doc. ¶¶ 24–27—complete diversity was destroyed, and federal jurisdiction lost, when Transamerica sought and obtained its own dismissal without having previously invoked Fed. R. Civ. P. 22. Cf. Standard Oil Co. of Tex. v. Marshall, 265 F.2d 46, 56 (5th Cir. 1959) (“Where federal jurisdiction rests on diversity of citizenship the diversity must be complete, and to see whether it is, all parties will be aligned as plaintiffs or defendants according to their real interests[.]”)

16, 2013) ("[p]ursuant to Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, attorney's fees are 'commonly awarded to an innocent stakeholder who successfully initiates a suit as an interpleader"') (quoting Landmark Chemicals, SA v. Merrill Lynch & Co., 234 F.R.D. 62, 63 (S.D.N. Y. 2005) (internal citations omitted)); Fidelity Brokerage Services, supra, 192 F. Supp. 2d at 183 (awarding interpleading party's reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and stating that As this Court did in Phase One, the Weininger court entered an order that not only granted JPMorgan a discharge from liability, but also "restrained and enjoined [the interpleaded defendants] from instituting or prosecuting any claim or action against JPM Chase ... in any jurisdiction arising from or relating to any claim to the blocked assets" turned over to the plaintiffs. I d. at 503.

See, e.g., Marisco, Ltd. v. American Samoa Government, 2012 WL 4764590 (D.HI. 2012) (permitting Rule 22 interpleader by garnishee bank). Because Garnishee holds accounts which are believed to be property of Defendant, it is aligned with Defendant so that Rule 22 is applicable. Garnishee's Memorandum of Law is indicative that it possesses the procedural ability to assert whatever defenses it wishes- but it elected not to object on the merits. Accordingly, Garnishee's opposition to the Motion as procedurally defective is without merit.

Lincoln alleges this Court’s jurisdiction pursuant to: 28 U.S.C. §§ 1335 and 2361 (statutory interpleader); and 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (diversity). Where the basis for jurisdiction is diversity, Fed. R. Civ. P. 22 permits interpleader relief. Interpleader relief “affords a party who fears that he will be exposed to the vexation of defending multiple claims to a limited fund or property that is under his control a procedure to settle his controversy and satisfy his obligations in a single proceeding.”

Indeed, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 codifies this requirement: “Persons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 22(a)(l ). Thus, to be a proper interpleader, there must be (1) two or more potential adverse claimants to a stake and (2) the stakeholder must face the threat of multiple liability.

Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides in pertinent part that “[p]ersons with claims that may expose a plaintiff to double or multiple liability may be joined as defendants and required to interplead.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 22(a)(1).