Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV39384, Date: 2023-12-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV39384    Hearing Date: December 1, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

PENNSYLVANIA MANUFACTURERS’ ALLIANCE INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Plaintiff(s),  

vs. 

 

CITY OF DOWNEY, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV39384 

 

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR INTERPLEADER DISBURSEMENT  

 

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m.  

December 1, 2023  

 

Plaintiff Pennsylvania Manufacturers’ Alliance Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint in interpleader against Defendants the City of Downey (“City”) and Robert Linares (“Linares”) (collectively, “Defendants”) alleging that both Defendants claim the right to Plaintiff’s $100,000 insurance policy arising from an automobile collision between Linares and Jose Bonilla Vasquez (“Vasquez”). Because Plaintiff was unable to determine the validity of the conflicting demands made by Defendants for the insurance policy, Plaintiff deposited the money with the clerk of the Court. On October 26, 2021, Plaintiff filed notice of deposit of the settlement funds with the clerk of the Court in the amount of $100,000. 

 

The City now moves for an order disbursing the interpleaded funds pursuant to the Court’s ruling on its motion for summary judgment that the full $100,000 should be awarded to the City. The motion is unopposed. 

 

Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or personal property to which conflicting claims are being made by others, can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate their claims among themselves. (Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497, 508 (i.e., an escrowholder who receives conflicting demands from the parties to the escrow regarding the funds or documents he or she holds); City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.) “Except in cases where by the law a right to a jury trial is now given, conflicting claims to funds or property or the value thereof so deposited or delivered shall be deemed issues triable by the court, and such issues may be first tried.” (CCP §386(e).) 

 

On January 12, 2023, the City filed a motion for summary judgment to settle the dispute of who is entitled to receipt of the insurance proceeds. On June 21, 2023, the Court granted the City’s unopposed motion for summary judgment regarding the distribution of the interpleaded funds. (Min. Order, June 21, 2023.) On June 26, 2023, the City filed the Notice of Ruling. Based on the foregoing, the conflicting claims to the funds has been resolved in the City’s favor, and there remains no further triable issues as to which Defendant is entitled to the interpleaded funds.  

 

Therefore, the City’s unopposed motion is GRANTED.   

 

Moving Defendant is ordered to give notice.   

 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: 

  • Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement. 

  • If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept31@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿ The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.¿¿ 

  • Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿ You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.¿¿ 

  • If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave.¿ 

 

Dated this 30th day of November 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court