Delaware Life Insurance Company v. Carey et al

Filing 17

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE REGARDING COURT'S SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION. Show Cause Response due by 11/7/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on 10/24/2017. (ofr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/24/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

DELAWARE LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,

8

Plaintiff,

9
10

v.

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
REGARDING COURT’S SUBJECT
MATTER JURISDICTION

CYNTHIA JANE CAREY, et al.,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 17-cv-04104-SVK

Defendants.

12
Before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion seeking permission to serve Defendant Cynthia Jane

13
14

Carey by publication and seeking an extension of time to complete that service. ECF 16. In

15

reviewing Plaintiff’s motion, the Court notes a possible jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, the

16

Court hereby ORDERS Plaintiff to show cause why the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over

17

this case.
This is an interpleader action in which Plaintiff Delaware Life Insurance Company seeks to

18
19

resolve competing claims the proceeds of a life insurance policy issued to Patrick F. Carey, who

20

died on January 28, 2017. See ECF 1 at ¶ 11. Plaintiff invokes the Court’s jurisdiction under the

21

Federal Interpleader Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1335. Id. at ¶ 1. That statute gives district courts original

22

jurisdiction over interpleader actions where (1) an amount of $500 or more is at stake, and (2) two

23

or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship are claiming or may claim to be entitled to the

24

money. 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a).
According to the Complaint, the insurance proceeds at stake in this case total $12,091.63.

25
26

ECF 1 at ¶ 21. This satisfies the amount in controversy requirement for a statutory interpleader

27

action.

28

Plaintiff has received adverse and conflicting claims to the insurance proceeds from Patrick

1

Carey’s children (Christine Marie Carey and Jefferson Richard Carey) and Patrick Carey’s ex-wife

2

(Cynthia Jane Carey). Id. at ¶ 20. According to the Complaint, Defendants Jefferson Carey and

3

Cynthia Carey are citizens and residents of California, and Defendant Christine Carey is a citizen

4

and resident of Missouri. Id. at ¶¶ 4-6. If correct, this would satisfy the minimal diversity

5

requirements for a statutory interpleader action.

6

Plaintiff’s recent motion regarding service of Cynthia Carey casts doubt as to whether two

7

or more of the claimants are of diverse citizenship, however. Plaintiff served Defendant Christine

8

Carey in California, not Missouri. ECF 11 (proof of service stating that summons was served on

9

Christine Carey in Watsonville, California). Plaintiff’s evidence concerning its unsuccessful
attempts to serve Cynthia Carey also includes evidence that Christine Carey was found at a

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

property in Watsonville, California on another occasion. ECF 16-3 at p. 16.

12

Accordingly, it appears that the claimants in this case may not meet the requirements for

13

minimal diversity under 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a). By November 7, 2017, Plaintiff must show cause in

14

writing why this action should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court

15

will defer ruling on Plaintiff’s motion relating to service of Cynthia Carey until the jurisdictional

16

issue has been resolved.

17

SO ORDERED.

18

Dated: October 24, 2017

19
20
SUSAN VAN KEULEN
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2