Jackson National Life Insurance Company v. Schooley et al

Filing 16

ORDER directing the parties to show cause why this case should not be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff, and any other party wishing to invoke federal jurisdiction in this matter, shall submit a short filing within fourtee n days establishing the requisite jurisdictional facts. This filing shall not exceed five pages, exclusive of exhibits. If any party makes such a filing, any other party shall have seven days to file a response not to exceed five pages, exclusive of exhibits. No reply briefs will be permitted without leave of court. Signed on 12/6/16 by Chief District Judge Greg Kays. (Strodtman, Tracy)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION
JACKSON NATIONAL LIFE INSURANCE
COMPANY,
Plaintiff,
vs.
BRIAN SCHOOLEY, BRAD SCHOOLEY,
and BRIDGET BRUNNER,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 4:16-cv-01012-DGK

ORDER DIRECTING THE PARTIES TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THIS CASE SHOULD
NOT BE DISMISSED FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This case purports to be an interpleader action brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1335
concerning entitlement to the proceeds of a life insurance policy. Plaintiff Jackson National Life
Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) alleges it is subject to potentially competing claims from three
siblings—Defendants Brian Schooley, Brad Schooley, and Bridget Brunner—for the policy
proceeds. Plaintiff seeks to interplead the funds into the Court’s registry and have the Court
determine who is entitled to the funds.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only hear cases authorized by
the Constitution or by statute. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377
(1994). Thus, the threshold question for every federal court is whether it possesses subject
matter jurisdiction to hear the case. If the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, it must dismiss
the case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Under § 1335, a federal district court has original jurisdiction
over any interpleader action involving: (1) an insurance policy worth at least $500, and (2) where
two or more adverse claimants of diverse citizenship have claimed, or may claim, to be entitled
to the policy proceeds. 28 U.S.C. § 1335.

It is unclear whether either of these jurisdictional elements is satisfied in this case. First,
neither the Complaint (Doc. 1) nor Plaintiff’s Motion to Interplead Funds (Doc. 14) states the
value of the policy proceeds. The Complaint merely makes a conclusory allegation that “this is
an action for interpleader that exceeds $500.” Compl. ¶ 5. Second, it is unclear whether
defendants’ positions are truly adverse.
As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, Plaintiff bears the burden of establishing it.
Kokkonen, 511 U.S. at 377. In order to clarify whether this Court possesses subject matter
jurisdiction to hear this case, Plaintiff—and any other party wishing to invoke federal jurisdiction
in this matter—shall submit a short filing within fourteen days establishing the requisite
jurisdictional facts. This filing shall not exceed five pages, exclusive of exhibits. If any party
makes such a filing, any other party shall have seven days to file a response not to exceed five
pages, exclusive of exhibits. No reply briefs will be permitted without leave of court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Date: December 6, 2016

/s/ Greg Kays
GREG KAYS, CHIEF JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2