Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Three
Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Five

Erieblogging: Day Twenty-Four

Recently, I’ve been looking at the twin aims of Erie outside of diversity cases. Today’s question: Do the twin aims apply when a federal court is entertaining statutory interpleader actions?

Statutory interpleader creates federal jurisdiction for minimal diversity state law actions in which a plaintiff seeks to settle rival claims to property. Armed with nationwide service of process, she can drag all potential claimants into one proceeding, thereby protecting herself against inconsistent or multiple liability. The Supreme Court has assumed that the twin aims apply in statutory interpleader actions. So have lower federal courts.

But nationwide service of process creates a problem. Why is uniformity with a forum state court important when the forum state court could never have entertained the action, because there was no personal jurisdiction over the defendant?

(Parallel posted on Prawfsblawg.)


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)