Judge: Melissa R. Mccormick, Case: "American First Credit Union v. ROI Property Group Management, LLC, et al.", Date: 2022-09-01 Tentative Ruling

Defendants Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. and Platinum Properties Investor Network, LLC’s Demurrer to Complaint

Defendants Platinum Properties Investor Network, Inc. and Platinum Properties Investor Network, LLC demurrer to plaintiff American First Credit Union’s complaint in interpleader.  For the following reasons, defendants’ demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

In ruling on a demurrer, a court must accept as true all allegations of fact contained in the complaint.  Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318.  A demurrer challenges only the legal sufficiency of the affected pleading, not the truth of the factual allegations in the pleading or the pleader’s ability to prove those allegations.  Cundiff v. GTE Cal., Inc. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 1395, 1404-05.  Questions of fact cannot be decided on demurrer.  Berryman v. Merit Prop. Mgmt., Inc. (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1544, 1556.  Because a demurrer tests only the sufficiency of the complaint, a court will not consider facts that have not been alleged in the complaint unless they may be reasonably inferred from the matters alleged or are proper subjects of judicial notice.  Hall v. Great W. Bank (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 713, 718 n.7.

“Any person, firm . . . 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.”  Civ. Proc. Code § 386(b).  A complaint in interpleader must show that the defendants make conflicting claims to the subject matter, and that the plaintiff cannot safely determine which claim is valid and offers to deposit the money in court.  Westamerica Bank v. City of Berkeley (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 598, 607-08. 

The right to the remedy of interpleader is founded on the consideration that a person is threatened not just with double liability, but with double vexation in respect to one liability.  Id. at 608.  An interpleader action, however, may not be maintained upon the mere pretext or suspicion of double vexation; the plaintiff must allege facts showing a reasonable probability of double vexation, or a valid threat of double vexation.  Id.

Defendants argue plaintiff cannot succeed in its interpleader action because it does not face a viable threat of double vexation.  Plaintiff’s barebones complaint does not allege sufficient facts from which the court can conclude plaintiff faces a reasonable probability of double vexation by defendants.  Defendants’ demurrer is sustained with leave to amend.

Should plaintiff desire to file an amended complaint that addresses the issues in this ruling, plaintiff must file and serve it by September 12, 2022.

Defendants to give notice.

Case Management Conference

The Case Management Conference is continued to December 15, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in Department C13.

Clerk to give notice.