Order | Filed: September 24, 2026
| Entered: September 24, 2026
Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Kaufman et al
Negotiable Instrument | New York Eastern
Scheduling Order
ORDER deferring ruling on 39 and 41 . Plaintiff brought this interpleader action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 against Defendants Robert J. Kaufman ("R.J. Kaufman") and Robert Kaufman ("R. Kaufman"), and now moves for default judgment and partial final judgment as to R. Kaufman. Dkt. No. 41 . Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "requires an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction: either upon federal question or diversity of citizenship, as provided in 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1332." Jackson Nat'l Life Ins. Co. v. Saccone, No. 2:23-cv-06138 (NJC) (LGD), 2024 WL 456825, at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Feb. 6, 2024) (first citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 22; then citing Correspondent Servs. Corp. v. First Equities Corp. of Florida, 338 F.3d 119, 124 (2d Cir. 2003); and then citing Sec. & Exch. Comm'n v. Blakstad, No. 20-CV-163 (DLC), 2020 WL 7398755, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 17, 2020)); see also Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Carey, No. 16-CV-3814 (DLI) (SJB), 2017 WL 4351512, at *3 (E.D.N.Y. Sep. 29, 2017) (noting that a plaintiff bring a Rule 22 interpleader action must "plead and prove an independent basis for subject-matter jurisdiction because Rule 22 is merely a procedural device" (internal quotation marks and citations omitted)).
The Complaint alleges that this Court has jurisdiction over this interpleader action "pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 because (a) the competing claims to the funds in the Account expose Wells Fargo to multiple liability; and (b) there is complete diversity between Wells Fargo and Interpleader Defendants." Dkt. No. 1 para. 7. Plaintiff, however, does not address subject matter jurisdiction in its motion for default judgment. It appears that Plaintiff contends that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, based on the allegation in the Complaint that there is complete diversity between the parties.
"Diversity jurisdiction in the Rule 22 context requires that the plaintiff... be of diverse citizenship to all defendants, and that the amount in controversy be greater than $75,000[,] but there need not be diversity between the claimants themselves." Jackson Nat'l Life Ins., 2024 WL 456825, at *2 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). Here, the Complaint alleges that Plaintiff is a citizen of South Dakota because it is a national banking association and its articles of association establish South Dakota as its main office; that R. Kaufman "is an individual residing in Bronx County, New York"; and that R.J. Kaufman "is an individual residing in Suffolk County, New York." Dkt. No. 1 paras. 4-6. The Court notes that "'[a]n individual's citizenship, within the meaning of the diversity statute, is determined by his domicile,' and residence or place of employment alone are 'insufficient to establish domicile for jurisdictional purposes.'" Lue v. JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 21-892, 2022 WL 1146219, at *1 (2d Cir. Apr. 19, 2022) (citation omitted). But even assuming that Plaintiff is a South Dakota citizen and R.J. Kaufman is a New York citizen, the record contains contradictions that preclude a finding that R. Kaufman is a New York citizen for diversity purposes; rather, R. Kaufman's citizenship appears to be unknown. Notably, Plaintiff has set forth that the Bronx address given by R. Kaufman when opening the account described in the Complaint was not R. Kaufman's actual address, and Plaintiff has been unable to locate R. Kaufman in New York. See Dkt. No. 16-1 at 5-6 (noting that Plaintiff's counsel was told by the resident of the Bronx address that R. Kaufman did not reside there, and that Plaintiff's counsel then attempted to use identifying information provided with R. Kaufmans account application to locate an accurate address for R. Kaufman, but only found that: (i) R. Kaufman does not, and has never, resided at the Bronx address; (ii) there are no residents in New York State with R. Kaufman's name and date of birth; and (iii) "there are 303 residents with the name of Robert Kaufman in New York State, any of whom could be the [R.] Kaufman that opened the Account"). Thus, it remains unclear whether R. Kaufman is a New ... (truncated)