What is a Complaint in Interpleader?

Useful Rulings on Complaint in Interpleader

Recent Rulings on Complaint in Interpleader

RICE & BLOOMFIELD, LLP VS DAVID NAKAMURA, ET AL.

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2020

KOTTLER & KOTTLER, A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION, ET AL. VS ADVANCED HEALTH CENTER OF INGLEWOOD, ET AL.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S (7) REQUESTS FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT Plaintiff in Interpleader Kottler & Kottler, a Professional Law Corporation (“Kottler”) requests entry of default judgment against Defendants in Interpleader Beverly Hills Pain Institute and Neurology, Playa Advance Surgical Institute, LLC, Infoneuro Group, A Medical Corporation, Playa Medical Plaza Group, Playa Advance Urgent Care, Inc., Airport Urgent Care & Industrial Medicine, a Professional Corporation, and Advanced Medical Solutions,

  • Hearing

    Dec 01, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MCELFISH LAW VS. FRANCOVICH

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Injury Medical Network, LLC's Motion to Strike Ashley Francovich's Answer to the First Amended Complaint in Interpleader Note: this tentative is issued by Judge O'Neill, who will conduct the hearing on November 24th. Defendant/Cross-Complainant Injury Medical Network, LLC's Motion to Strike Ashley Francovich's Answer to the First Amended Complaint In Interpleader is DENIED. CCP §128, 435 and 436. Ms. Francovich has a good faith claim to the funds at issue.

  • Hearing

    Nov 24, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

JOHNNY BUSTOS, AN INDIVIDUAL AND FIFTY PERCENT SHAREHOLDER AT ALL PERTINENT TIMES OF B.E.B. AND ASSOCIATES, INC., CONSULTING VS ASGHAR ESMAEILI, ET AL.

“After any such complaint or cross-complaint in interpleader has been filed, the court in which it is filed may enter its order restraining all parties to the action from instituting or further prosecuting nay other proceeding in any court in this state affecting the rights and obligations as between the parties to the interpleader until further order of the court.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (f).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

DONALD E HOLLINGSHEAD VS DEBRA L DUGGAN, ET AL.

On July 17, 2019 Gregg and Proland Management Company filed a cross-complaint against Hollingshead, Hollingshead Management Company, Marcie Holland, and Roes 1-50 alleging 4 causes of action: Breach of contract Breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing Equitable indemnity Interpleader of funds disavowed by Donald Hollingshead. On December 4, 2019, this Court issued an amended and final ruling on the Demurrer, Motions to Strike, Motion to Compel and Motion to Quash.

  • Hearing

    Nov 16, 2020

LALEZARY LAW FIRM, LLP VS STEWART CHIROPRACTIC CORP, ET AL.

Interpleader Interpleader is proper whenever double or multiple claims are asserted by two or more persons such that they may expose the person against whom the claims are asserted to double or multiple liability. (CCP § 386(b).)

  • Hearing

    Nov 12, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

MERCHANTS BONDING COMPANY (MUTUAL), AN IOWA CORPORATION VS NBA AUTOMOTIVE, INC., ET AL.

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Nov 06, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

IN RE: LORENE CIANOS

The issue with Advisor Group’s motion is that Advisor Group has not requested to join this lawsuit as an interpleader, nor has it filed a lawsuit directly with the Court or sought to interplead via cross-complaint. Advisor Group provides no authority that would enable the Court to rule on its motion for fees – which is made under the interpleader statute – without first joining the lawsuit as an interpleader. Unless and until this occurs, the Court cannot grant Advisor Group’s fee motion. Conclusion.

  • Hearing

    Nov 04, 2020

THE MORTGAGE LAW FIRM, PLC VS ALL CLAIMANTS TO SURPLUS PROCEEDS AFTER THE TRUSTEE'S SALE OF THE REAL PROPERTY

There were also communications received from the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department concerning the investigation of possible fraudulent real estate transactions related to the subject property, and a request to freeze the funds, but the Sheriff’s Office has evidently since determined that it does “not object to the initiation of an interpleader action by The Mortgage Law Firm.” [Exs. J, N].

  • Hearing

    Oct 30, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. VS ENERGY ENTERPRISES USA, ET AL.

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

ACCREDITED SURETY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, INC. VS ENERGY ENTERPRISES USA, ET AL.

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 29, 2020

GUILLERMO CHAIRES SUAREZ VS DVA HEALTHCARE RENAL CARE, INC.

Motion for Leave to Intervene by Trumbull Insurance Company is GRANTED. (Labor Code § 3852)....

  • Hearing

    Oct 26, 2020

GANAHL LUMBER COMPANY VS AKOP KESABLYAN, ET AL.

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

HARLEY LIKER ET AL VS TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

Under section 3886, subdivision (c), a party which interpleads funds is admitting that it no longer has any right to interest on those funds: “(c) Any amount which a plaintiff or cross-complainant admits to be payable may be deposited by him with the clerk of the court at the time of the filing of the complaint or cross-complaint in interpleader without first obtaining an order of the court therefor.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

  • Type

    Insurance

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

LADONNA MCNEIL VS SUNNY HILLS AUTO, INC., ET AL.

The analogous federal statute to CCP § 386(f) is 28 U.S.C. § 2361, which provides as follows: In any civil action of interpleader or in the nature of interpleader under section 1335 of this title, a district court may issue its process for all claimants and enter its order restraining them from instituting or prosecuting any proceeding in any State or United States court affecting the property, instrument or obligation involved in the interpleader action until further order of the court.

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2020

WILSHIRE ESCROW COMPANY, VS REAL BOY, LLC,, ET AL.

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

BUTCH TRUST VS MERRILL LYNCH FENNER & SMITH

Pietak, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at 612–614 (absent waiver by stakeholder, claimant cannot file cross-complaint against stakeholder in an interpleader action; sole focus of interpleader action is resolution of interpleader, i.e. whether interpleader proper and if so, resolution of claims of interpleader defendants after discharge of neutral stakeholder). Merrill Lynch makes no claims to the interpleaded funds. Butch Trust fails to establish that Merrill Lynch has any interest in the interpleaded funds.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

BUTCH TRUST VS MERRILL LYNCH FENNER & SMITH

Pietak, supra, 90 Cal.App.4th at 612–614 (absent waiver by stakeholder, claimant cannot file cross-complaint against stakeholder in an interpleader action; sole focus of interpleader action is resolution of interpleader, i.e. whether interpleader proper and if so, resolution of claims of interpleader defendants after discharge of neutral stakeholder). Merrill Lynch makes no claims to the interpleaded funds. Butch Trust fails to establish that Merrill Lynch has any interest in the interpleaded funds.

  • Hearing

    Oct 20, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RESS FINANCIAL CORPORATION VS MINEVRA DAGNE SMITH-EDMONSON, ET AL.

Petition for Distribution of Funds To the extent there is a petition for distribution of funds on file, the petition is denied for the following reasons: First, Smith-Edmonson filed a “Answer to the Petitioner’s Complaint in Interpleader and Request to Disburse” on 7/30/20. It is not clear that this document is intended to be a petition or a motion for distribution of funds, as it is not tilted as such. Second, the Answer and Request does not contain any authority in support of the request for relief.

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY VS DEVONSHIRE SILVER PLAZA L

DSP commenced arbitration proceedings on April 15, 2018, which was one month after the date set for escrow closing of the Property; however, instead of responding, Mehta and Gupta asserted a cross-complaint with respect to the interpleader action filed by Plaintiff Fidelity National Title Insurance Company “which sought to interplead the $70,000 in earnest deposit money into the Superior Court.” (Id.)

  • Hearing

    Oct 16, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

NGL LOGISTICS, LLC, ET AL. VS RICARDO BERNAL ALVAREZ, ET AL.

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ... As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

LEWIS VS CABRAL [E-FILE]

Defendants Motion for Interpleader of Funds, Discharge from Action and Sanctions is denied. Defendants have not met their burden that interpleader is appropriate under these circumstances. All requests for sanctions are denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

LEWIS VS CABRAL [E-FILE]

Defendants Motion for Interpleader of Funds, Discharge from Action and Sanctions is denied. Defendants have not met their burden that interpleader is appropriate under these circumstances. All requests for sanctions are denied.

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Auto

TITAN INSURANCE VS. ALVARADO

Defendants-in-Interpleader Seyna Clark and Kamau Clark oppose the motion on the grounds they did not agree to release Plaintiff-in-Interpleader Titan Insurance’s insureds from liability, but the instant Motion does not seek any relief as to Plaintiff-in-Interpleader Titan Insurance’s insureds. Upon deposit of said funds, Plaintiff-in-Interpleader Titan Insurance is to be discharged from all liability asserted against it with respect to said bond by the claimants designated herein and by all other persons.

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2020

WESTERN SURETY COMPANY VS TEKEYSHA MARTIN, ET AL.

“After any such complaint or cross-complaint in interpleader has been filed, the court in which it is filed may enter its order restraining all parties to the action from instituting or further prosecuting any other proceeding in any court in this state affecting the rights and obligations as between the parties to the interpleader until further order of the court.” Id. § 386(f).

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 39     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we load this page.