Judge: Lynne M. Hobbs, Case: 22STCV07941, Date: 2023-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07941    Hearing Date: October 26, 2023    Dept: 30

JANELLE MENDEZ vs NONA MANUKYAN, et al.

Motion for Interpleader Funds

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ motion for interpleader of funds (the “Motion”) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.  Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION

The Court finds that Defendants’ request to interplead funds through a noticed motion is improper. Code Civ. Proc. § 386(b)—the statute upon which Defendants assert their motion should be granted—provides that “[w]hen the person . . . against whom such claims are made, or may be made, is a defendant in an action brought upon one or more of such claims, it may either file a verified cross-complaint in interpleader, admitting that it has no interest in the money or property claimed, or in only a portion thereof . . . and apply to the court upon notice to such parties for an order to deliver such money or property or such portion thereof as the court shall direct . . . or may bring a separate action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 386(b), emphasis added.)

If Defendants wish to invoke the interpleader procedure, Code Civ. Proc. § 386(b) requires Defendants to file a verified cross-complaint in interpleader or file a separate action to compel Plaintiff, LAUSD, and Sedgwick to interplead and litigate their claims to the insurance policy funds. Moreover, Defendants’ reliance on Hood v. Gonzales, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th 57 is inapposite because the issue in such case was whether a party to the action filed a legally sufficient complaint in interpleader. (Hood v. Gonzales, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 75.) Here, however, Defendants have neither filed a complaint in interpleader nor disavowed their interest in the insurance policy funds. Defendants cite no applicable legal authority which stands for the proposition that the interpleader process can commence via a noticed motion.

Additionally, the Court finds that Defendants’ notice of motion does not set forth all relief sought. “A notice of motion must state in the opening paragraph the nature of the order being sought and the grounds for issuance of the order.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 3.110(a).) The memorandum of points and authorities in support of the motion indicates that Defendants seek “to (1) interplead the funds with the Court, (2) set the hearing to allow the court to take evidence from all parties regarding the proper allocation of these funds and (3) the final resolution of the case.” (Motion at 4:18-20.) The Notice of Motion, however, only states that “Defendants . . . move the court for an interpleader of funds.” (Motion at 1:26-27.)

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the Motion WITHOUT PREJUDICE.