What is a Complaint in Interpleader?

Useful Rulings on Complaint in Interpleader

Recent Rulings on Complaint in Interpleader

JENNIFER STROHMAN VS BROOKE HELLER ET AL

On May 23, 2019, nominal defendant Buchalter filed a cross-complaint against Plaintiff/Cross-Defendant and Defendant/Cross-Complainant alleging (1) interpleader and (2) declaratory judgment. By stipulation of the parties, Buchalter was dismissed from the action on July 19, 2019.

  • Hearing

    Jul 13, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS SCOTT BERGGREN, ET AL.

Finally, the Court may issue an “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (f).) Discussion Plaintiff moves to deposit the interpleader funds and be discharged from liability on the cause of action for Interpleader.

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

FRANK X. ENDERLE, JR., TRUSTEE OF THE AUGUSTINE H. ENDERLE TRUST, ET AL. VS OAKWOOD CEMETERY ASSOCIATION, OF LOS ANGELES, A NON-PROFIT CORPORATION, ET AL.

Rather, after setting forth the deficiencies in the reformation and interpleader causes of action pled in the original cross-complaint, the court stated that due to the liberal policy of allowing leave to amend, OCA was “given the opportunity to try to cure the defects in its pleading” which only contained causes of action for reformation and interpleader. (See 12/11/19 Minute Order).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

NORTHWEST TRUSTEE SERVICES, INC. VS 24340 RIMFORD PLACE DIAMOND BAR CA 91765

If the trustee has failed to determine the priority of written claims within 90 days following the 30-day notice period, then within 10 days thereafter the trustee shall deposit the funds with the clerk of the court pursuant to subdivision (c) or file an interpleader action pursuant to subdivision (e). Nothing in this section shall preclude any person from pursuing other remedies or claims as to surplus proceeds.” (Emphasis added).

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

  • Type

    Real Property

  • Sub Type

    other

FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY VS BRYAN C. CLARK, ET AL.

Plaintiff argues that after bringing this interpleader, it is entitled to discharge in this case pursuant to Civil Code section 2924j(c).

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CALIFORNIA COMMERCE CLUB, INC. VS TOMMY NGO, ET AL.

Although federal law allows a bond to be filed for an interpleader action in federal court (see 28 U.S.C. § 1335(a)), there is no California statutory or case law authorizing a bond to be filed for an interpleader action in California state court.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

GOLDEN WEST FORECLOSURE VS. ACCURATE BUILDERS

HEARING ON CLAIM FOR SURPLUS FUNDS FILED BY ACCURATE BUILDERS LLC * TENTATIVE RULING: * This case was filed by Plaintiff as an interpleader action to obtain a court ruling on the disposition of funds following a foreclosure sale. All the funds at issue have been distributed and, as far as the court is aware, there are no remaining issues to be decided. Therefore, Plaintiff is directed to prepare and file a dismissal of the action.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Judge

    Burch

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ANDREW C. ZALDIVAR, 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

    Jul 06, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DONALD L. CRAWFORD, SR. VS ALERO MACK, JR., ET AL.

The statute only provides for interpleader actions with respect to persons with a recorded interest in the real property that was the subject to the trustee’s sale. (Civ. Code § 2924j, subd. (a).) Therefore, the demurrer to the fourth cause of action is also sustained with leave to amend. Conclusion Defendants Kristina Klam, Thomas J. Holthus, and McCarthy Holthus, LLP’s Demurrer to Plaintiff Donald Crawford’s Complaint is SUSTAINED WITH 20 DAYS’ LEAVE TO AMEND. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 06, 2020

BRAYTON PRCELL LLP VS CHRISTINE DUMAS, ET AL.

SERVICE: [X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK [X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK [X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK OPPOSITION: None filed as of July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None REPLY: None filed as of July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None ANALYSIS: Background & Discussion On May 7, 2020, Plaintiff Brayton Purcell, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in interpleader against Defendants Christine Dumas, Sylvester Dumas, Jennie Camper, Velma Dumas, Harold Dumas, Connie

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

GROVES, ET AL. V. ZIEVE, BRODNAX & STEELE, ET AL.

Notably, Defendant did not file an interpleader action until November 29, 2018. (Defendant’s Request for Judicial Notice (“RFJN” Exh. 8.) On its interpleader, the only claimant served was Plaintiff in this suit. (Defendant’s RFJN, Exh. 8.) Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings of the fourth cause of action for breach of statutory duties is denied.

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ANDREW C. ZALDIVAR, 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

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Collections

  • Sub Type

    Collections

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY V. SCOTT

In deciding the appeal and discussing basic rules regarding an interpleader action, the court said, “When the right of interpleader and discharge has been established . . . , the trial of the issues between the conflicting claimants proceeds on the original and any additional pleadings deemed necessary.” (Principal, supra, 156 Cal.App.4th at 682 (quoting Witkin).) The appellate court noted that the trial court had apparently not deemed any other pleadings necessary.

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

UNICAL AVIATION, INC. VS. SUMMERS

filed by Panasonic Avionics Corporation; Moving party seeks an order (1) allowing deposit with the Clerk of Court the following property that is the subject matter of this action: 36 Smart Monitors originally manufactured by Panasonic (the "Smart Monitors"); (2) upon making such deposit, discharging interpleaders from any further liability to any party to this action relating to the Smart Monitors or the allegations contained in the Complaint; and (3) entering a judgment of dismissal be entered in favor of the interpleader

  • Hearing

    Jun 29, 2020

WESTERN NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS FRANCIS DAVID MANCINI, 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

    Jun 29, 2020

  • Judge

    James E. Blancarte

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MM DEVELOPMENT VS. LINX CARD

The Pelican defendants have not shown that all of the 15 defendants named in the complaint are subject to the exercise of personal jurisdiction in New York, either general or specific, other than First Data which filed the interpleader action there, and possibly Pelican which is a defendant in the interpleader action.

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

CIRCUIT MCKELLOGG KINNEY & ROSS LLP VS SLAGA

In this action, the combined interpleader action and cross-complaints presented four distinct claims: an attempt to interplead the dispute by the law firm Plaintiff, a determination of the Blind Dirt, LLC ownership interests as between Stifano and Slaga, whether the law firm breached fiduciary duties owed to Stifano, and whether the law firm breached fiduciary duties owed to Slaga. Only the ownership claim is premised on the contract and subject to the attorney fee provision.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Contract - Other

TICOR TITLE COMPANY OF CA VS LINA MINKOVITCH ET AL

Discussion Defendant Yan contends that the funds at issue in this interpleader are at issue in a pending appeal of Los Angeles Superior Court Case: In re: Marriage of Minkovitch (BD630832). Specifically, Defendant Yan contends that a judgment determining the proceeds of the sale of the real property at issue in this interpleader would render the appeal in In re: Marriage of Minkovitch futile. The Court agrees.

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MARSHALL SANDERS VS ALAN BRUSTEIN, D.C., ET AL.

As a result, Plaintiff filed this interpleader action so that the Defendants’ entitlement to the funds could be determined. Plaintiff deposited $9,745.00 with the Clerk of the Court, deducting $4,000.00 for attorney’s fee and costs. Plaintiff now takes issue with certain statements set forth in Brustein’s Answer which he seeks to have stricken.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, ET AL. V. ALICIA ANN COHEN, ET AL.

BACKGROUND: This is an interpleader action to determine defendants’ rights in and to a $300,000 settlement paid by plaintiff Interinsurance Exchange of The Automobile Club of Southern California (“Auto Club”) in settlement of an underlying personal injury action, Alicia Cohen v. Amber Jones, et al., Santa Barbara Superior Court Case No. 1468798.

  • Hearing

    Jun 22, 2020

LUCKY TEAM ESCROW, INC. V. ROCKWELL CAPITAL GROUP, LLC, ET AL.

“[T]he interpleader proceeding is traditionally viewed as two lawsuits in one. The first dispute is between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the right to interplead the funds. The second dispute to be resolved is who is to receive the interpleaded funds.” (Ibid.) In the instant case, Lucky Team Escrow filed its Complaint in Interpleader (“Interpleader”) and simultaneously deposited with the Clerk of the Court $50,000. (See Interpleader, at p. 1 & Exh. C.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 19, 2020

STANDARD INSURANCE COMPANY VS. SCOTT

This is an interpleader action filed by a life insurance company when a dispute between three claimants on the proceeds of the policy – the decedent’s wife, mother, and brother – could not be resolved. The decedent acquired the policy in 2000 through his employment with BART, named his mother and brother as beneficiaries in 2002, and never changed that designation, although he got married in 2010.

  • Hearing

    Jun 18, 2020

ARC VINEYARDS LLC V JAMES SANDER

Arc filed its complaint on October 15, 2019, alleging three causes of action: (1) specific performance; (2) breach of contract; and (3) interpleader.[2] On March 16, 2020, Trust filed its Answer, denying the validity of the Agreement and alleging ten affirmative defenses, including: 4th affirmative defense for lack of consideration; 5th affirmative defense for lack of mutuality; and 6th affirmative defense based on illusory agreement.

  • Hearing

    Jun 17, 2020

VENEGAS, ET AL. V. GEICO INS. AGENCY, INC., ET AL.

Whether the parties agree to interpleader on behalf of Defendant Gary McEachnie of the maximum liability of $15,000 and a dismissal of that individual defendant with prejudice as he is sued only in his capacity as an owner of a vehicle and not as a driver. 3. Whether Plaintiff and the individually named parties can agree to sever resolution of the property damages from a global settlement. 4. Whether the parties agree to an early settlement conference with the Court.

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2020

SMAILI & ASSOCIATES, P.C. V. STATE FARM INSURANCE

Interpleader Complaint by Goldberg Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or personal property to which conflicting claims are being made by others can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate their claims among themselves. Hancock Oil Co. of Calif. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal. 2d 497, 508; City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal. App. 4th 1114, 1122.

  • Hearing

    Mar 16, 2020

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 36     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.