Gabriel Zamorano Lugo, et al. vs Auto Resources, Inc., et al.

24CV-01683 Gabriel Zamorano Lugo, et al. vs Auto Resources, Inc., et al.

Application for Distribution of Interplead Funds

Cross-Defendant Apodaca’s application for distribution of interplead funds is DENIED.

There are two major deficiencies with Cross-Defendant’s answer. First, the general and specific denial of “each and every allegation contained in the complaint . . .” (Apodaca Answer, 3:4-5.) This undermines the foundation of Cross-Defendant’s claim to the funds as it in effect denies the allegation that there are adverse and conflicting claims. (ACIC Complaint, No. 9, 3:7-9.)

Second, Cross-Defendant’s answer to the complaint for interpleader does not meet the pleading requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 386, subdivision (d). Code of Civil Procedure section 386, subdivision (d) states the answer “shall contain allegations of fact as to his ownership of or other interest in the amount or property . . .” (Code Civ. Proc. § 386, subd. (d).)

Here, Cross-Defendant’s answer merely states in conclusory fashion at Number 5 that “The claims of Cross-Defendant have priority over all other Cross-Defendants.” (Apodaca Answer, No. 5, 3:27.) A bare assertion of entitlement, without factual support, does not satisfy the requirements of section 386, subd. (d) and does not place the claim

at issue before the court. (See Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 476.)

Cross-Defendant’s application for distribution of interplead funds does not remedy the above deficiencies as it is equally deficient as to factual support.