Howard W Lake vs. Brian Scott Gragert

34-2018-00243276-CU-PA-GDS: Howard W Lake vs. Brian Scott Gragert 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Regarding Deposit and Dismissal in Department 8C

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that in Judge Richard C. Miadich’s absence, any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard at 1:30 p.m. in Department 16B in the Tani G. Cantil-Sakauye Courthouse at 500 G Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Shelleyanne W.L. Chang presiding.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-8380, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16159979406

34-2018-00243276-CU-PA-GDS: Howard W Lake vs. Brian Scott Gragert 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Regarding Deposit and Dismissal in Department 8C

SIP Address:

16159979406@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

ID: 16159979406

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court-Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

This matter was originally scheduled for hearing on July 15, 2026.

Plaintiff Howard W. Lake Jr. appeared at the hearing in pro per, although he is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00243276-CU-PA-GDS: Howard W Lake vs. Brian Scott Gragert 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Regarding Deposit and Dismissal in Department 8C

represented by counsel, Alexander Gorman, Esq. Mr. Lake did not inform the Court that he was represented by counsel and advised the Court that he did not receive notice of the hearing or service of the motion and that he opposed the motion. Because of this representation, the Court vacated the tentative ruling and continued the hearing to August 12, 2026, and ordered that any opposition and reply be filed pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005(b) based on the continued hearing date.

No further briefing has been filed on the motion, and the Court has confirmed that Mr. Lake was served with the moving paper via his counsel.

The Court now rules on the motion as follows.

Defendant Brian Gragert’s (“Moving Defendant”) Motion for Order re Deposit and Dismissal is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 26, 2016. Moving Defendant and Defendant James Gragert, along with their insurer, Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin (“Viking”), entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff Howard Lake (“Plaintiff”) for the policy limit of $25,000.00. (Decl. of Andrew F. Noble ISO Mot. (“Noble Decl.”) ¶ 2.) In August of 2020, Viking received a notice of lien from the Child Department of Social Services (“CDSS”). (Noble Decl. ¶ 3.) As CDSS’s lien is statutory, Viking cannot pay the agreed upon settlement funds to Plaintiff without including CDSS in the agreement. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff and CDSS have been unable to agree upon apportionment of the funds. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Moving Defendant now moves to deposit the $25,000.00 settlement amount with the court clerk to allow the Court to adjudicate the apportionment of the settlement among the claimants to the funds. (Noble Decl. ¶ 6.) Moving Defendant also asks the Court to be dismissed from the action without prejudice upon deposit of the funds with the Court. The proof of service filed with the motion shows that Plaintiff and CDSS were served with the moving papers.

“Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or property to which conflicting claims are being made by others, can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate the claims by themselves.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026 Update) ¶ 2:470.) “The stakeholder

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00243276-CU-PA-GDS: Howard W Lake vs. Brian Scott Gragert 08/12/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Regarding Deposit and Dismissal in Department 8C

(party against whom conflicting claims are being made) may interplead the money or property in court in various ways . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 2:480.) “If the stakeholder has already been sued by one or more of the adverse claimants, and wishes to interplead the other claimants,” the “defendant-stakeholder may file a verified cross-complaint joining the other adverse claimants.” (Id. at ¶¶ 2:485, 2:486; see Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (b).) Alternatively, if the defendant-stakeholder “claims no interest in the funds or property held, an interpleader cross-complaint need not be filed.

The defendant-stakeholder may simply apply to the court for permission to deposit the money or property with the court clerk, and for an order discharging that person from further liability to the adverse claimants.” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 2:489; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a), 386.5.) Such an application must be supported by an affidavit establishing the grounds for interpleader, and notice of the motion must be served on each of the adverse claimants to the funds/property. (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶¶ 2:490-2:491; Code Civ.

Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a), 386.5.)

Moving Defendant has shown his entitlement to the relief requested. Further, the motion is unopposed. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)]

Moving Defendant’s motion will be granted upon deposit of the $25,000.00 with the Court.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.