Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: BC701437, Date: 2024-03-08 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: BC701437    Hearing Date: March 8, 2024    Dept: 26

On April 9, 2018, Ticor Title Company of California (“Ticor”) filed the instant complaint in interpleader concerning funds from the purchase and sale of real property.  The complaint names the following defendants who assert a claim in interest in said funds: Lina Minkovitch, Yan Minkovitch, and the United States of America. 

The United States has since released its claims to the disputed funds and was dismissed from the complaint on December 16, 2020.

On October 30, 2023, Yan Minkovitch filed a motion for jury trial.  On November 30, 2023, the Court denied Yan Minkovitch’s motion for jury trial on the grounds that the law is well settled that there is no right to a jury trial in an interpleader action.  (Order 11/30/23; See also, Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1514, [“The California Supreme Court long ago established the principle ‘ “that a suit in interpleader, such as this one, and involving like issues, is an equitable proceeding in which the rights of the parties as between themselves are governed by principles of equity [citations], and ... in such cases the right to a trial by jury does not exist ....” [Citations.]’  Even if the underlying controversy was one of law, the gravamen of an interpleader action between rival claimants to the proceeds is ‘of an equitable nature,’ and denial of an application for a jury trial is not error.”].) 

On December 1, 2023, Yan Minkovitch filed a notice of appeal of the Court’s November 30, 2023 Order.

On December 21, 2023, Yan Minkovitch filed an ex parte application to stay the proceedings.  Department 26 was dark during that period.  On December 26, 2023, the Honorable Michelle Williams in Department 1 denied the ex parte application for a stay of the proceedings.

On January 2, 2024, the Court commenced the hearing on the disposition of interpleaded funds.  The hearing was not completed on January 2, 2024.  The Court continued the remainder of the hearing to January 11, 2024.  (Minute Order 1/2/24.)

On January 11, 2024, the Court was engaged in a jury trial.  The disbursement hearing was further continued to February 20, 2024.  (Minute Order 1/11/24.)  During the January 11, 2024 hearing, Yan Minkovitch claimed that he had filed a writ of supersedeas.  The Court records indicated that the Court of Appeal had issued a default.  The Court ordered Yan Minkovitch to file and serve a declaration including a copy of writ of supersedeas together with a docket and any other evidence that indicates the status of any pending appellate proceeding by February 13, 2024.  (Minute Order 1/11/24.)  The Court further ordered Lina Minkovitch to file and serve a declaration with a copy of any exhibits showing the status of any pending appellate proceedings by February 15, 2024.  (Minute Order 1/11/24.)

On February 13, 2024, Yan Minkovitch filed a declaration stating that he had filed an appeal of this court’s decision on the motion for a jury trial in the Court of Appeal, Case No. B334330 and attached a screen printout of the online docket indicating that the Civil case information was to be filed on February 13, 2024 and the record on appeal was to be filed on May 28, 2024.  Lina Minkovitch did not file any declaration regarding the appellate proceedings.

On February 20, 2024, the Court was still engaged in a jury trial.  The disbursement hearing was continued to March 8, 2024.  (Minute Order 2/20/24.)  The Court noted that if any party wished to move for a stay, that party must obtain a CRS reservation and file and serve a properly noticed motion with a hearing date reserved on CRS.  (Minute Order 2/20/24.)

On February 27, 2024, Yan Minkovitch filed the instant motion to stay the action pending the appeal of the order denying Yan Minkovitch’s motion for a jury trial.  On March 1, 2024, the Court granted Yan Minkovitch’s ex parte application to advance the hearing on the instant motion to stay the action and advanced the instant hearing to March 8, 2024.  (Minute Order 3/1/24.)

No opposition or reply has been filed.

Yan Minkovitch contends that contends that the instant action is automatically stayed pending appeal pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 916(A).  This contention is incorrect.

An order denying a request for jury trial is not itself an appealable order.  Rather, “a trial court's denial of a request for jury trial may be reviewed prior to trial by a petition for an extraordinary writ.”  (Shaw v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 983, 992.) 

“If an appeal from the court's order is perfected, by statute the trial court generally loses subject matter jurisdiction over any matter affected by the appeal. (§ 916, subd. (a); Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Delfino (2005) 35 Cal.4th 180, 196–197.) This automatic stay provision does not, however, apply to writ proceedings. (In re Brandy R. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 607, 609–610.) Statutes governing petitions for writs of mandate contain no analogous automatic stay provision.”  (Paul Blanco's Good Car Company Auto Group v. Superior Court of Alameda County (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 86, 97–98.)

Here, Yan Minkovitch is appealing the Court’s November 30, 2023 Order denying Yan Minkovitch’s motion for a jury trial.  Under the authority noted above, a denial of a request for jury trial can only be reviewed by a writ proceeding.  The automatic stay provided from under CCP section 916 does not apply to writ proceedings.  Thus, the automatic stay provision does not apply to any writ or appeal that Yan Minkovitch has filed.  Absent a discretionary stay by this Court or a stay by writ of supersedeas by the Court of Appeal, the instant action is not stayed.

Yan Minkovitch does not provide any evidence suggesting that the Court of Appeal has granted a writ of supersedeas or issued a stay.  Nor has this Court received any stay by writ of supersedeas from the Court of Appeal. 

Moreover, Yan Minkovitch fails to provide any basis for why this Court should exercise its inherent power to stay the instant action.  (See e.g., Freiberg v. City of Mission Viejo (1995) 33 Cal.App.4th 1484, 1489, [“Trial courts generally have the inherent power to stay proceedings in the interests of justice and to promote judicial efficiency.”].)

First, Yan Minkovitch fails to indicate any merit to the appeal.  As noted in the November 30, 2023 Order, long standing case law establishes that interpleader actions are equitable actions and that there is no right to a jury trial in such actions.  Yan Minkovitch does not provide any reasoning indicating that the Court was erroneous in its holding or that the Court of Appeal would overturn this long-standing precedent.

Second, any stay would be plainly and extremely prejudicial.  As the U.S. Supreme Court has explained, significant delay is prejudicial as it results “the loss of evidence, including the inability of witnesses to recall specific facts, or the possible death of a party.”  (Clinton v. Jones (1997) 520 U.S. 681, 708.)  Here, the instant action has been pending for nearly six years since its initiation in 2018.  There has been a pattern gamesmanship causing undue delay.

In sum, Yan Minkovitch fails to present any basis as to why a stay should be issued in the instant action.  Accordingly, Yan Minkovitch’s motion for a stay is DENIED.

Court Clerk to give notice.