Motion for discharge in interpleader
Plaintiff JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) moves pursuant to CCP sections 2023.010 et al. and 2033.280 for an order deeming the truth of all specified facts in the Requests for Admissions, Set One, propounded by Plaintiff on Defendant Kevin Foley (“Defendant”) on November 18, 2025, admitted.
If a party to whom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response, the requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of any documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed admitted. (CCP § 2033.280.)
On November 18, 2025, Plaintiff served Defendant with its Request for Admissions. (Langedyk decl., ¶2, Exhibit 1.) Plaintiff has not received a response. (Id., ¶3.)
As Plaintiff has shown it served Requests for Admissions and Defendant has not responded, unless Defendant Kevin Foley serves responses in substantial compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.220 before the hearing on this motion, this court will GRANT the motion deeming the admissions admitted and sign the order provided by Plaintiff.
5. 25CV06515, United Financial Casualty Company v. Arnold
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. DANA B. SIMONDS)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
18. PLEASE USE DEPT. 18’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Plaintiff in Interpleader United Financial Casualty Company (“United”) moves for an order that it be discharged from all liability with respect to the Disputed Funds that are the subject matter of this action as it has deposited that amount with this court.
I. Interpleader Action, Notice of Motion
On September 18, 2025, United filed its Complaint-In-Interpleader alleging that defendants in interpleader, Max G. Arnold, The Law Office of Max G. Arnold, Inc. (“Arnold Defendants”) and Cindy Devereaux Hunter (“Defendant Hunter”) are in dispute over who is entitled to $26,138.53 from United (“the Disputed Amount”).
The Arnold Defendants represented Defendant Hunter a personal injury action. Defendant Hunter submitted a claim to United for Underinsured Motorist benefits on May 28, 2021. (Hernandez decl., ¶2.)
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
On February 9, 2023, Defendant Hunter signed an Uninsured/Underinsured Motorist Bodily Injury Release (“UM/UIM Release”) of any and all claims arising out of the May 28, 2021, accident. (Id., ¶3.)
Pursuant to the terms of the UM/UIM Release, United Financial agreed to pay Ms. Hunter a sum of $85,000 (the “Settlement Amount”) for a release of all claims under the uninsured/underinsured motorist portion of her policy. (Id., ¶3, Exhibit A.)
At or about the time Defendant Hunter entered into the UM/UIM Release, the Arnold Defendants claimed a one-third interest in the Settlement Amount based upon a Contingency Fee Agreement for attorney fees with respect to the UIM Claim. (Id., ¶4, Exhibit B.)
Hunter disputes she owes the Arnold Defendants the Disputed Amount. (Id., at ¶7.)
United issued payment directly to Ms. Hunter for $58,861.47, which cleared on August 30, 2023. (Id., ¶8.)
United issued a check made payable to “Law Office of Max G. Arnold Inc.” in the amount of $26,138.53, which was sent directly to Defendant Hunter but was not forwarded to the Arnold Defendants and has not been negotiated to date. (Ibid.)
On January 4, 2024, Max G. Arnold, individually, filed suit against Defendant Hunter. Defendant Hunter’s default was taken, and a default judgment was entered against her on April 15, 2025, for the amount of $29,654.70 based upon the Contingency Fee Agreement between those parties. 4
On September 18, 2025, United filed this action. United’s payment of the Disputed Funds to this court was completed on January 7, 2026.
On October 21, 2025, United filed an Affidavit of Due Diligence of the summons and complaint in this action on Defendant Hunter. In the affidavit, process server Barbara Alves states that on October 11, 2025, at 6:45 p.m., at 1771 Elizabeth Avenue, Apt. I, in Corning, California, an individual meeting Defendant Hunter’s description acknowledged that she was the individual to be served. However, that individual closed the door when Ms. Alves announced service so Ms. Alves left the documents on the doorstep.
As long as servers identify themselves and tell reluctant defendants that they are being served with process and leave the papers as close as possible to the defendants, service is valid notwithstanding the defendant's refusal to accept. (Trujillo v. Trujillo (1945) 71 Cal. App. 2d 257, 260.)
Defendant Max G. Arnold filed an answer to United’s complaint on February 26, 2026. The Arnold Defendants and Defendant Hunter were mailed and emailed a copy of this motion. Thus, service of summons and complaint, and of this motion on the defendants is complete.
II. Interpleader Complaint – CCP section 386
Code of Civil Procedure section 386 allows United to interplead the Disputed Funds and be discharged from this action.
Subsection (a) provides: “[W]enever conflicting claims are or may be made upon a person for or relating to personal property, or the performance of an obligation, or any portion thereof, such person may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims. The order of substitution may be made and the action of interpleader may be maintained, and the applicant or interpleading party be discharged from liability to all or any of the conflicting claimants, although their titles or claims have not a common origin, or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another.” (CCP § 386(a).)
Subsection (f) of section 386 allows this court to enter “its order restraining all parties to the action from instituting or further prosecuting any other proceeding in any court in this state affecting the rights and obligations as between the parties to the interpleader until further order of the court.” (CCP section 386(f).)
III.
Conclusion
Based upon the foregoing, United’s motion is GRANTED. The court will sign the proposed order.
6. 25CV08885, Vargas Flaherty v. Kerston
(TENTATIVE ISSUED BY HON. DANA B. SIMONDS)
IF ORAL ARGUMENT IS REQUESTED, MATTER WILL BE HEARD IN DEPT.
18. PLEASE USE DEPT. 18’S ZOOM LOGIN INFORMATION (SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE).
Defendant Peter Kerston (“Defendant”) moves for an order expunging the Notice of Pendency of Action recorded by Plaintiffs Casilda Flaherty and Christopher Flaherty (“Plaintiffs”). Defendant seeks sanctions in the amount of $5,000.
I. Complaint
This action was filed on December 31, 2025. A first amended complaint was filed on February 26, 2026. Plaintiffs allege they leased property located at 1412 Quail Court, Santa Rosa, California 95404 (“Subject Property”). Plaintiffs allege defendants Peter Kerston and Caroline 5