Here’s what Nolland has to say on the matter, for what it’s worth:
A quite different tradition-history question is posed by the link with John 11 created by the shared name and the motif of resurrection. The second of these links is made yet more precise by the considerations adduced at the discussion of v 31 below, where a Johannine note is identified. Since, apart from the shared name, the links belong to what we have seen to be a secondary development of the parable, and since, further, the name can hardly be a later insertion into the narrative (the name is needed at least in v 24), it seems best to conclude that the shared name is quite fortuitous. But if Luke, or this element of his tradition, already knew something of the John 11 tradition, then we can add an extra note to the description above of the development of vv 30–31, namely the awareness that another Lazarus had come back from the dead, and that the kind of people the editor of this parable had in mind had not been brought to repentance.
It’s certainly an odd coincidence.