Jimmy Wolfe Reeves v Kelly Stephens

Case Number

22CV04107

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 09/25/2024 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Divide Deposited Funds

Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff: Samuel Lynn

Defendant/Claimant CaseAdvance Inc: Alan Nesbit

Claimant Sutter County DCSS: Anne Glanzer

Claimant Yuba County DCSS: Patricia Bartlett

RULING

The Motion is DENIED. The matter should be allowed to proceed until all interested parties have appeared and the Court can reasonably make a disinterested determination as to the proper allocation of the deposited funds. The Court finds no reason to now set a CMC to address the issue. Mr. Nesbit and Mr. Lynn shall meet and confer with all interested parties, and they will either reach an agreement on how the funds should be distributed or alternatively present their respective positions and then set a hearing for the Court to either approve the plan or for the Court to decide how the funds should be allocated after it reads each interested parties’ respective position.

The Motion [Summarized]

On or about March 6, 2024, Plaintiff settled this matter, in the amount of $100,000, favoring Plaintiff. Conflicting demands have been asserted against Defendant claiming entitlement to the Settlement Funds or some portion thereof by the claimant. The existing claims against the settlement amount deposited by the Defendant with this Court far exceed the amount of the settlement. The Court, in accepting the interpleaded funds from the Defendant, must now determine how the funds will be disbursed. Plaintiff proposes that the Court award him $10,000.00 of deposited funds for pain, suffering, and damages incurred in the August 21, 2021, collision. As a direct and proximate result of the vehicle versus cyclist collision that occurred on August 21, 2021, due to negligence by Defendants, Plaintiff has sustained significant injuries and has incurred medical debts of approximately $542,608 in obtaining conservative treatment for his pain and extensive injuries. Plaintiff requests the Court to grant the Motion to Divide Deposited Funds.  

The Opposition [Summarized]

In the pending Motion for Distribution, Plaintiff has proposed that he be awarded $10,000 out of the interpleaded settlement funds, and the three law firms who were apparently involved in this matter are seeking a combined forty percent (40%) of the interpleaded funds ($13,218.66 each) and has proposed a pro rata distribution of the remaining amount of slightly more than $50,000 to the remaining Defendants in interpleader; it is a gross overreach of Plaintiff’s rights in this matter, and is, in essence, an attempt to usurp the Court’s role in determining the outcome of this matter, as well as the rights and liabilities of the various parties hereto prior to any trial.  

Defendant is new to this proceeding and is not even sure how many of the various Defendants in interpleader that Plaintiffs have named herein have or even intend to appear.  Each of the Defendants in Interpleader have a Constitutional due process right to appear and make their presentations, and to present the instant Motion now, before the Defendants have even had an opportunity to appear at a Case Management Conference or know how many potential parties will actually be asserting any claims to the funds is both premature and, again, violates Defendants’ right to a full, fair, equitable and disinterested outcome in this  matter.

The responsibility for the ultimate distribution of the interpleaded funds clearly lies with the Court herein (Code Civ.Proc, §386), who is vested with the responsibility of determining the rights of the various claimants to the property that has been deposited with the court. It is not something that the Plaintiff or his attorneys have any right to be even involved with other than as parties with competing claims to the interpleaded funds, and Plaintiff’s Motion to Divide Funds should be denied.

The Court’s Conclusions

The Opposition is persuasive, and the motion should be denied.