DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
21CECG02536·fresno·Probate·Interpleader
Hearing about 2 months agoDENIED

In re: Carlos Rodriguez

by Mercury Insurance Company to File an Interpleader of Funds and Discharge of Liability

Hearing date
Jul 21, 2026
Department
501
Prevailing
N/A
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMercury Insurance Company
DefendantRonnie Rodriguez
DefendantAdrianna Rodriguez
DefendantRaquel Rodriguez
DefendantCarlos Rodriguez
DefendantMichelle Rodriguez
DefendantChristina Rodriguez

Ruling

(34) Tentative Ruling

Re: In re: Carlos Rodriguez Superior Court Case No. 21CECG02536

Hearing Date: July 21, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: by Mercury Insurance Company to File an Interpleader of Funds and Discharge of Liability

Tentative Ruling:

To deny without prejudice.

Explanation:

On August 28, 2024 and October 23, 2024, the hearing on the motion to file an interpleader was continued to allow plaintiff to serve all defendants. On January 8, 2025, plaintiff’s motion was ultimately denied without prejudice due to the failure to provide proof of service. Plaintiff’s renewed motion was filed on February 5, 2025 and denied without prejudice due to failure to provide proof of service. On February 2, 2026, plaintiff’s renewed motion was filed and the original hearing date continued for plaintiff to file proof of service. No proofs of service have been filed.

Plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company’s renewed application to serve summons on defendants Ronnie Rodriguez, Adrianna Rodriguez, Raquel Rodriguez, Carlos Rodriguez and Michelle Rodriguez by publication was granted on October 8, 2025. No proof of service by publication has been filed. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1300, subd. (d).) Defendant Christina Rodriguez was not included in the October 8, 2025 order and there is no proof of service of the motion for defendant Christina Rodriguez. Accordingly, plaintiff Mercury Insurance Company’s motion is denied without prejudice.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: KCK on 0720/26. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

11

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share