Judge: Matthew C. Braner, Case: 37-2023-00037378-CU-MC-CTL, Date: 2024-06-14 Tentative Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA,

DEPT.:

EVENT DATE:

EVENT TIME:

HALL OF JUSTICE

TENTATIVE RULINGS - June 13, 2024

06/14/2024  09:00:00 AM  C-60 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

JUDICIAL OFFICER:Matthew C. Braner

CASE NO.:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE: CASE TYPE:

Civil - Unlimited  Misc Complaints - Other Demurrer / Motion to Strike 37-2023-00037378-CU-MC-CTL SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY VS DHAGAM [IMAGED] CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED:

Defendants Rosaura Vega and Jose Esparza's demurrer is OVERRULED.

A demurrer may be sustained if the pleading 'does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.' (Code Civ. Proc., § 430.10, subd. (e).) To test the sufficiency of a cause of action, the court treats as true 'all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law.' (Centinela Freeman Emergency Medical Associates v. Health Net of California, Inc. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 994, 1010.) The court may also consider matters that have been judicially noticed. (Id.) It is not necessary to 'plead evidentiary facts supporting [an] allegation of ultimate fact,' and a pleading 'is adequate so long as it apprises the defendant of the factual basis for the claim.' (Birke v. Oakwood Worldwide (2009) 169 Cal.App.4th 1540, 1549.) In considering whether a complaint or cross-complaint adequately states a claim, the court shall give it a 'reasonable interpretation, reading it as a whole and its parts in their context.' (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.) Here, Defendants demur to the single cause of action in the complaint for interpleader on the basis it is uncertain and fails to state a claim. Defendants argue the claim is uncertain because Plaintiff has failed to allege the amount of two of the claims on its principal's bond (no. 5291707); without alleging the amounts, it is uncertain whether the combined claims will exceed the $50,000 bond amount. Defendants also argue the cause of action is insufficiently pled, because if the claims are covered by the bond amount, the court will not need to resolve who among the claimants is entitled to a portion of the bond.

The court disagrees.

Plaintiff brings this interpleader action under Code of Civil Procedure section 386, subdivision (b), which states: 'Any person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.' First, absent from the language of the statute is any need to plead the exact amounts of the claims, or that the claims must exceed a set amount of funds. In fact, such a rule would be contrary to section 386, which requires that conflicting claims for interpleaded funds be deemed issues triable by the court, including for situations when the deposited amount is more or less than the amounts claimed to be due.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (e); see also Hood v. Gonzalez (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 73 ['[T]here is no language in the interpleader statutes stating this procedure is available only in circumstances where multiple claims exceed the money or property deposited with a court. . . . To the contrary, the plain Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3048707  28 CASE NUMBER: CASE TITLE:  SURETEC INSURANCE COMPANY VS DHAGAM [IMAGED]  37-2023-00037378-CU-MC-CTL language of section 386, subdivision (e) provides otherwise.'].) Second, the most important aspect of an interpleader action is that the plaintiff has filed 'a verified pleading disclaiming any interest in the money or property claimed,' which Plaintiff has done in this case.

(Pacific Loan Management Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1489 ['It is the stakeholder's avowed disinterest in the interpleaded proceeds which gives him the right to interplead.'].) Plaintiff has also sufficiently plead that two or more claims have been made on the same money or property (the bond), which are or may be conflicting. Nothing more is required to survive demurrer.

Accordingly, Defendants' demurrer is overruled.

If the tentative is confirmed, the minute order will be the order of the court. Defendants will have ten days from entry of the order to file and serve an answer to the complaint. (CRC 3.1320, subd. (j).) Calendar No.: Event ID:  TENTATIVE RULINGS

3048707  28