Close X
Attorney Spotlight

What is Shannon Wiley looking forward to at this year's Asembia Specialty Pharmacy Summit? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Primary Care Providers Win Challenge of CMS Interpretation of Enhanced Payment Law

With the help and support of the Tennessee Medical Association, 21 Tennessee physicians of underserved communities joined together and retained Bass, Berry & Sims to file suit against the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to stop improper collection efforts. Our team, led by David King, was successful in halting efforts to recoup TennCare payments that were used legitimately to expand services in communities that needed them. Read more

Tennessee Medical Association & Bass, Berry & Sims

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Download the Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017, authored by Bass, Berry & Sims

The Healthcare Fraud & Abuse Review 2017 details all healthcare-related False Claims Act settlements from last year, organized by particular sectors of the healthcare industry. In addition to reviewing all healthcare fraud-related settlements, the Review includes updates on enforcement-related litigation involving the Stark Law and Anti-Kickback Statute, and looks at the continued implications from the government's focus on enforcement efforts involving individual actors in connection with civil and criminal healthcare fraud investigations.

Click here to download the Review.

Chris Lazarini Discusses Application of Interpleader Statute

Securities Litigation Commentator


July 11, 2016

Bass, Berry & Sims attorney Chris Lazarini discussed the case of UBS Financial Services, Inc. vs. Kaufman in which multiple parties laid claim to the Kaufmans' UBS account. UBS' efforts to get relief in a federal court interpleader action were rejected for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Chris provided the analysis for Securities Litigation Commentator (SLC). The full text of the analysis is below and used with permission from the publication. If you would like to receive additional content from the SLC, please visit the SLC website to sign up for the newsletter.

UBS Financial Services, Inc. vs. Kaufman, No. 3:15-cv-00887 (W.D. Ky., 6/7/16) 

*Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.
**The interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. §1135, grants federal courts jurisdiction where diversity exists between at least two of the adverse claimants.
***The interpleader rule, FRCP 22, does not create jurisdiction; instead, statutory jurisdiction must exist in actions brought under the rule.
****There is a split of authority whether the disinterested stakeholder's citizenship should be considered in examining whether diversity jurisdiction exists in a Rule 22 interpleader action. 

This interpleader action follows various state court and bankruptcy court actions involving Defendants Louis and Debra Kaufman and Defendant Cornerstone Industries. The Kaufmans, who were going through a divorce, and Cornerstone, which had won a $1.8 million judgment against Defendant Louis Kaufman, both laid claim to the Kaufmans' joint account at UBS. UBS sought relief from the Court, and Cornerstone filed a cross-claim against the Kaufmans, asserting its claim to the joint account. Debra Kaufman moved to dismiss UBS' claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court agrees.

First, the Court examines whether subject matter jurisdiction exists under the interpleader statute, 28 U.S.C. §1335, which disregards the citizenship of the disinterested stakeholder (UBS) and requires diverse citizenship between at least two of the interpleader defendants. The Court finds no diversity because the Kaufmans and Cornerstone Industries are all Kentucky citizens. Next, the Court considers whether subject matter jurisdiction exists through the interpleader rule, FRCP 22. The Court notes that the rule is a procedural device only, and actions under the rule must be based on a statutory grant of jurisdiction. The issue becomes, the Court explains, whether the disinterested stakeholder's citizenship is considered. If it is, UBS will have established diversity under 28 U.S.C. §1335, because it is a citizen of Delaware and New Jersey, while defendants are citizens of Kentucky. If UBS' citizenship is not considered, however, diversity does not exist.

Finding no binding Sixth Circuit precedent, the Court declines to follow the lead of other appellate courts which used the disinterested stakeholder's citizenship in examining diversity in a rule-based case. It deems it nonsensical and improper to apply different analyses to the same question in statutory and rule interpleader actions. Instead, the Court disregards UBS' citizenship and finds no diversity under 28 U.S.C. §1335, noting that that result is consistent with the prohibition against allowing defendants to remove a state court matter filed in their home state to federal court. Finally, the Court finds that it cannot exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Cornerstone Industries' cross-claim because such jurisdiction must be related to the Court’s original jurisdiction, which does not exist.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.