Jimmy Wolfe Reeves v. Kelly Stephens

Case Number

22CV04107

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 05/15/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion To Deposit Interpleader

Tentative Ruling

For Plaintiff Jimmy Wolfe Reeves: Samuel G. Lynn

For Defendant Kelly Stephens: Jay M. Borgeson, Henderson & Borgeson

RULING

For all reasons discussed herein, the motion of Plaintiff to deposit interpleader is denied without prejudice.

NOTE: This case is on the 6/26/24 8:30am calendar: Plaintiff failed to timely file request for dismissal following notice of unconditional settlement pursuant to California Rule of Court 3.1385.

 

Background

Plaintiff Jimmy Wolfe Reeves filed a complaint in this matter on October 19, 2022, alleging two causes of action against Defendant Kelly Stephens: (1) general negligence; and (2) motor vehicle. As alleged in the complaint, on August 20, 2021, Plaintiff was riding his bicycle within a bike lane on State Street in the City of Santa Barbara, California, when a vehicle driven by Defendant failed to yield the right of way, made an unsafe turning movement, and collided with Plaintiff resulting in injuries and damages.

Defendant filed an answer to the complaint on June 29, 2023, generally denying its allegations and asserting three affirmative defenses.

Court records reflect that on March 6, 2024, a notice of unconditional settlement of the entire case was filed by Plaintiff, stating that this matter has been settled.

On April 19, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for an order requiring the Interinsurance Exchange of the Automobile Club (the insurer) to deposit settlement funds with the clerk of the Court. In support of the motion, Plaintiff submits the declaration of his counsel, Samuel G. Lynn, who declares that this matter settled on March 6, 2024, for the amount of $100,000 to be paid to Plaintiff by the insurer. (Lynn Decl., ¶ 2.) Lynn further states that Plaintiff carries over $500,000 in medical expenses and over $200,000.00 in litigation funding loans and attorneys’ costs, and that various lien holders are not able to come to an agreement as to how the settlement funds should be allocated. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-5.)

In the memorandum in support of the motion, Plaintiff asserts that he is homeless, without income, and unable to meet the financial demands of lien holders resulting from his treatment, loans, and attorney’s costs through the settlement funds. (Motion at p. 2, ll. 18-20.) Because the lienholders cannot agree to an allocation of the settlement funds, Plaintiff argues, the Court must determine and declare the amount to be paid to the parties and must order the lienholders to interplead and litigate their claims. (Id. at ll. 21-24.)  

The motion is opposed by Defendant.

Analysis

In the notice, Plaintiff states that the present motion is made under Code of Civil Procedure section 386, which provides that “[a]ny person … 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (b).)

“ ‘In an interpleader action, the Court initially determines the right of the Plaintiff to interplead the funds; if that right is sustained, an interlocutory decree is entered which requires the Defendants to interplead and litigate their claims to the funds.’ [Citation.]” (Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1513-1514, original italics.) “The true test of suitability for interpleader is the stakeholder’s disavowal of interest in the property sought to be interpleaded, coupled with the perceived ability of the Court to resolve the entire controversy as to entitlement to that property without need for the stakeholder to be a party to the suit. ‘ “ ‘[I]f the relations of the parties are such that the Court’s decision would determine the responsibility of the escrow-holder, he is for the purposes and within the scope of the code section authorizing interpleader a mere stake-holder.’ ” [Citation.]” (Pacific Loan Management Corp. v. Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1489-1490.)

The present motion is procedurally inappropriate. For example, though available information indicates that there exist multiple conflicting claims to the settlement funds, Plaintiff offers no evidence or information showing that he is holding the settlement funds at issue. (See Hood v. Gonzales (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 73.) In addition, Plaintiff, to whom the settlement funds are to be paid, has not disavowed any interest in the funds and has himself, according to the information offered by Plaintiff, incurred independent personal liability to the purported other claimants to the settlement funds. (See Hancock Oil Co. of Cal. v. Independent Distributing Co. (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497, 505-506.) In addition, Plaintiff offers no information to demonstrate that notice of the present motion was given to each adverse party. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.)

Moreover, to the extent Plaintiff seeks an order compelling Defendant or the insurer, who is not a party to this action, to file a complaint in interpleader or deposit money with the Court, there exists no demonstrated mechanism by or authority under which the Court may compel, at the request of a stakeholder, a holder of money or property to initiate an interpleader action.

Assuming without deciding for present purposes that the parties to this action have entered into a written or oral settlement agreement, available information indicates that Plaintiff may have a claim against Defendant with respect to the enforcement of the settlement agreement. Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, subdivision (a), sets forth the procedure by which a party may file a motion for an order entering judgment pursuant to the terms of a settlement. Plaintiff may also be able to enforce any settlement agreement between the parties in a separate action. (See, e.g., Smith v. Golden Eagle Ins. Co. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 1371, 1375-1376.) However, in the motion, Plaintiff has not presented a procedurally appropriate request under Code of Code of Civil Procedure section 664.6, or another statute, and has not filed a separate action to enforce any settlement agreement. Therefore, neither a procedurally appropriate motion nor a separate action are presently before the Court.

For all reasons further discussed above, the Court will deny the motion. The Court’s ruling herein is without prejudice to any future procedurally appropriate motion that may be filed by Plaintiff or Defendant with respect to the purported settlement agreement or the settlement funds.