Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 23PSCV03488, Date: 2024-12-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23PSCV03488    Hearing Date: December 10, 2024    Dept: 6

CASE NAME:  Deborah Russel v. U.S. Bank 

U.S. Bank National Association’s Motion to Join Necessary Parties, or in the Alternative, to Dismiss Action 

TENTATIVE RULING 

The Court GRANTS in part Defendant U.S. Bank National Association’s motion to join necessary parties. Plaintiff must file and serve an amended complaint naming Laurie Freeman as a party to this action within 30 days of the Court’s order. The Court otherwise DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

            Defendant U.S. Bank National Association is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.           

BACKGROUND 

This is a banking dispute. On November 9, 2023, plaintiff Deborah Russel (Plaintiff) filed this action against defendant U.S. Bank National Association[1] (U.S. Bank) and Does 1 through 50. On April 23, 2024, Plaintiff filed the operative First Amended Complaint (FAC) against U.S. Bank and Does 1 through 50, alleging causes of action for negligence, gross negligence, breach of bailment, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and conversion. 

On November 5, 2024, U.S. Bank moved to join necessary parties, or in the alternative, to dismiss this action. The motion is unopposed. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

            “A person who is subject to service of process and whose joinder will not deprive the court of jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action shall be joined as a party in the action if (1) in his absence complete relief cannot be accorded among those already parties or (2) he claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that the disposition of the action in his absence may (i) as a practical matter impair or impede his ability to protect that interest or (ii) leave any of the persons already parties subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations by reason of his claimed interest. If he has not been so joined, the court shall order that he be made a party.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) 

DISCUSSION 

Meet and Confer 

The Court appreciates U.S. Bank’s efforts to meet and confer before bringing this motion, but requests that parties meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference. (Lilly Decl., ¶ 2, Exs. A, B; Dept. 6 Courtroom Information [“Parties are required to meet and confer in person, by telephone, or by video conference before filing any motion”].) 

Summary of Arguments 

U.S. Bank contends Laurie Freeman (Freeman) and Don Cummings (Cummings) should be joined as necessary parties to this lawsuit. U.S. Bank contends Freeman at a minimum and potentially Cummings are indispensable parties because the subject matter of this action are the funds that Plaintiff transferred to herself from her deceased stepfather’s account, and that Freeman and Cummings claim were improperly transferred. U.S. Bank contends Plaintiff’s counsel confirmed a dispute exists between Plaintiff on the one hand and Freeman and Cummings on the other. U.S. Bank contends the legitimacy of those transfers is clearly in dispute, that Freeman and Cummings have unequivocally claimed an interest in those funds, and that they are a part of Plaintiff’s deceased stepfather’s estate, such that Freeman’s and Cummings’ absence from this matter would prejudice them and U.S. Bank. U.S. Bank indicates that it returned approximately $40,000.00 of the funds back to Plaintiff’s deceased stepfather’s bank account based on Freeman’s and Cummings’ allegations of fraud against Plaintiff, and indicate that Freeman, as a beneficiary of the decedent’s bank account, has taken possession of those funds. U.S. Bank alternatively contends this action should be dismissed if Freeman or Cummings cannot be joined. 

Analysis 

The Court finds Freeman is a necessary party given her purported possession of the funds at issue. (Crom Decl., ¶ 8; see Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) Freeman also appears to claim an interest in the funds at issue as a beneficiary to the accounts of the decedent. Additionally, Plaintiff did not present any evidence to contradict this claim or evidence. The Court also construes Plaintiff’s lack of opposition as a tacit admission that U.S. Bank’s arguments are meritorious. (See Sexton v. Superior Court (1997) 58 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1410; C. Opposing the Motion—and Rebutting the Opposition, Cal. Prac. Guide Civ. Pro. Before Trial Ch. 9(I)-C, ¶ 9:105.10; see also Moulton Niguel Water Dist. v. Colombo (2003) 111 Cal.App.4th 1210, 1215 [“Contentions are waived when a party fails to support them with reasoned argument and citations to authority. [Citation]”].) 

However, the Court does not find Cummings to be a necessary party. None of the evidence U.S. Bank presented suggests that Cummings is in possession of the funds at issue, nor does it suggest that Cummings claims a right to those funds. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) The evidence at most suggests that Cummings was a witness to Plaintiff’s purported fraud. (See generally, Crom. Decl.) Even U.S. Bank indirectly admits that Cummings does not clearly have an interest in this dispute. (Motion, 7:7-8 [“Here, there can be no reasonable dispute that, Laurie Freeman at a minimum, and potentially Don Cummings as well, are indispensable parties…”].) To the extent Cummings has an interest as a potential heir of his father’s estate, there still is no evidence demonstrating that he is claiming an interest in the disputed funds as an heir. (See Lilly Decl., ¶ 3; Code Civ. Proc., § 389, subd. (a).) Should Cummings later claim an interest in those funds or other evidence demonstrates he has such an interest, U.S. Bank may revisit this issue on a later motion. 

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS in part the motion. Plaintiff must file and serve an amended complaint naming Laurie Freeman as a party to this action within 30 days of the Court’s order. The Court otherwise DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS in part Defendant U.S. Bank National Association’s motion to join necessary parties. Plaintiff must file and serve an amended complaint naming Laurie Freeman as a party to this action within 30 days of the Court’s order. The Court otherwise DENIES the motion without prejudice. 

            Defendant U.S. Bank National Association is ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.