III. LARSHELL’S POTENTIAL CLAIM ESTABLISHES DIVERSITY UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 1335. On pages 7 and 8 of their Brief, Movants contend that Larshell is not a “claimant” under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 because she “is an heir of the Estate, and claims an interest through the Estate” [ECF 27, p. 7-8]. To the contrary, Larshell, as Ebony’s mother, has a claim for Ebony’s alleged wrongful death.

7 Case 1:17-cv-02858-TCB Document 27 Filed 09/15/17 Page 7 of 9 Curley is an heir of the Estate, and claims an imerest through the Estate. Because Curley is not a "claimant" as that term is used in 28 U.S.C. 1335, Curley must be dismissed from the Petition for Interpleader. Another reason why Curley must be dismissed is because she is not "adverse" to all other claimants.

CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Great American respectfully requests that the Court: (1) enter an order granting leave, pursuant to Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to make the requisite deposit under 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(2); and (2) enter a preliminary injunction prohibiting AIG, the Greenberg Group, and all other parties and persons having notice of the injunction, and their agents, attorneys, servants, and employees and all persons in active concert or participation with any of them, from instituting or prosecuting or continuing to prosecute any proceeding in any State or United States court or in any arbitration proceeding, including the Arbitration, affecting the Policy or the proceeds thereof. Dated: New York, New York BOUNDAS, SKARZYNSKI, May 20, 2009 WALSH & BLACK, LLC Of Counsel: By: s/ James T. Sandnes James A. Skarzynski James T. Sandnes (JS-8944)

Defendants. ) [REVISED PROPOSED] ORDER FOR INTERPLEADER DEPOSIT, INJUNCTION AND DISMISSAL WITH PREJUDICE Case 1:17-cv-00131-WSD Document 60-1 Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 4 2 Upon Motion of Plaintiffs Hartford Life and Annuity Insurance Company and The Prudential Insurance Company of America (together, “Plaintiffs”) and the revisions requested in Plaintiffs’ Reply briefs in connection with same seeking, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1335, Rule 67 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Rule 67, an Order: (1) directing Plaintiffs to distribute to the Clerk of this Court a check in the amount $3,000,000, (the “Death Benefit”) representing the proceeds of individual life insurance policy number LT4956327 (the “Policy”) issued by Hartford and which is payable as a result of the death of Gaylon LaBoa, plus any applicable interest; (2) deeming withdrawn, without prejudice, and subject to renewal at the appropriate time, Plaintiffs’ request for: (a) a discharge of all liability and dismissal with prejudice all claims against Plaintiffs relating to the Policy and/or the Death Benefit; (b) a dismissal of Plaintiffs from this action with prejudice, (c) an injunction enjoining the Defendants from prosecuting an action in any other forum for payment of the Death Benefit or otherwise related in any way to the Policy; and (d) an award of legal fees and costs from the amount of the De

See Hapag-Lloyd, 814 F.3d at 153 (acknowleding that the District Court may have to "untangle complicated questions of subrogation and set-offs among the parties as it determines payment obligations"). The amount on deposit being sufficient for these purposes and under the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 1335, there is no need for Clearlake to continue as a party to the action. Nor does the filing of a counterclaim by ING in its Amended Answer (or the request for arrest of the funds by NuStar, addressed above) require keeping Clearlake in this action.

Michelman v. Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co., 685 F.3d 887, 894 (9th Cir. 2012; 28 U.S.C. 1335(a); Tashire, 386 U.S. at 530-32. “In most cases, it is not difficult for the stakeholder to meet the requirement of a reasonable and good faith fear of multiple litigation, and courts appear to require merely that the Case 4:16-cv-00114-AWA-DEM Document 67-1 Filed 10/25/16 Page 12 of 18 PageID# 549 13 stakeholder’s concern in this regard be more than conjectural.”

IV. CONCLUSION Deutsch has invoked the court’s subject matter and personal jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 by depositing the sculpture in a bank safe deposit box and proposing an order transferring control over the safe deposit box/sculpture to this Court. Defendants have collectively confirmed § 1335 jurisdiction by submitting disclaimers and evidence (much of it 9 Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999 (ACPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d); Mattel, Inc. v. Barbie-Club.com, 310 F.3d 293, 294 (2d Cir. 2002) (construing statute); Office Depot Inc. v. Zuccarini, 596 F.3d 696, 703 (9th Cir. 2010) (quasi-in-rem jurisdiction to enforce an assigned judgment).

See, e.g., NYLife Distribs. v. Adherence Grp., 72 F.3d 371, 382 (3d Cir. 1995) (reversing a district court dismissal of an interpleader action by an administrator of a fund, and emphasizing that “the trend over the years has been directed toward increasing the availability of interpleader and relaxing historical, technical restraints on the device”); National Bank of Detroit v. Shelden, 730 F.2d 421, 421-22 (6th Cir. 1984) (interpleader was appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1335 to determine who were the proper trustees of the trust). The interpleader action by John Hancock is likewise perfectly appropriate here.

Here, Plaintiff seeks dismissal of the CTPC on the basis that Lincoln is not subject to competing claims to the Irrevocable Schlafly Trust and EFELDF Policies. To the contrary, Lincoln’s CTPC for Interpleader fully sets forth the basis for its “bona fide fear of adverse claims” warranting interpleader relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1335. CNA Ins. Cos. v. Waters, 926 F.2d 247, 251 (3d Cir. 1991).

Statutory interpleader requires, at minimum, “[t]wo or more adverse claimants, of diverse citizenship.” 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)(1) (emphasis added). When, as here, the adverse claimants to the proceeds at issue are 3 1016607v.1 all Louisiana citizens, statutory interpleader quite clearly cannot be the basis of the Court’s jurisdiction.