MEMORANDUM

Appellants, defendant-claimants below, appeal from the district court’s dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in a 28 U.S.C. § 1335 interpleader action brought by Methwold International Finance Company. The facts of this case are known to the parties. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , but we dismiss because appellants lack standing on appeal.

A party appealing a judgment must be able to satisfy the constitutional requirements for standing. Knisley v. Network Assocs., Inc., 312 F.3d 1123 , 1126 (9th Cir.2002). Constitutional standing requires that an appellant show that it is “likely, and not merely speculative, that a favorable decision will provide redress.” Id. (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-61 , 112 S.Ct. 2130 , 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992)).

Although we are sympathetic to the appellants’ predicament in this case, and understand the difficulties associated with bringing a separate suit against Methwold because it is a foreign company, a favorable decision would not provide any redress for the appellants’ alleged injuries. There are no funds to distribute because the proposed interpleader fund was not deposited with the district court. Meth-wold is also unlikely to bring another motion to deposit funds or respond to any further proceedings. Methwold failed to respond to the district court’s order below demanding that Methwold show cause as to why the case should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, and it has not responded to this appeal. Indeed, Meth-wold’s counsel have withdrawn from the case. It is not within our power to force Methwold back into court, and any argument that Methwold might voluntarily return is speculative at best. Thus, because there is no redress available for appellants’ alleged injuries, they lack standing on appeal.

DISMISSED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. . Though we also decline to decide the issue, dicta in a prior decision suggests that Nevada may have personal jurisdiction over Meth-wold as a result of Methwold bringing an interpleader action in this case. See Dow Chem. Co. v. Calderon, 422 F.3d 827 , 834 (9th Cir.2005) (quoting Gen. Contracting & Trading Co. v. Interpole, Inc., 940 F.2d 20, 22 (1st Cir.1991) (citations omitted)) ("assuming] without deciding” that we would apply a First Circuit case holding that "personal jurisdiction exists where a defendant also independently seeks affirmative relief in a separate action before the same court concerning the same transaction or occurrence” whether the action "take[s] place prior to the suit’s institution, or at the time suit is brought, or after suit has started").