Case Name: Michael Millen v. Apryl Moreno List, et al.
Case No.: 1-14-CV-261347

Demurrer to the interpleader complaint by pro se defendant Apryl Moreno List

On February 26, 2014, plaintiff Michael Millen filed an interpleader complaint alleging he represented defendant Apryl Moreno List in two lawsuits resulting in a recovery of $5,551.53. (Compl., ¶¶ 4-8.) Millen alleges that List requested he turn over those funds to her because she was Millen’s client and the funds represent her share of the recovery. (Id., ¶ 9.) However, Millen also alleges that defendant Turn the Hearts (formerly known as Cradles of Love) asserted it is entitled to the funds because List purportedly signed an agreement in 2005 assigning all of the funds to the corporation. (Id., ¶ 10, Ex. A.) Millen filed this interpleader action because he is in the middle of two competing claims, which he cannot reconcile. (Id., ¶ 11.)

List maintains she signed the agreement with Cradles of Love in 2005, which is nine years since the filing of this action. As a result, List demurs to the interpleader complaint on the ground that it is barred by the four-year limitations period contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 337.

Interpleader is a procedure where a person holding money to which conflicting claims are being made by others can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate their claims amongst themselves. (Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497, 508; see Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489.) Once the stakeholder’s right to interplead is established, he deposits the money to the court and he may be discharged from liability to any of the claimants. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 874.) This enables the stakeholder to avoid multiplicity of actions, and the risk of inconsistent results if each of the claimants were to sue him separately. (Id.) An interpleader action traditionally is viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder’s right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who will receive the funds interpleaded. (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 612.) As against the stakeholder, claimants may only raise matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader, i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present. (Id.)

In the case at bar, Millen is the stakeholder alleging there are conflicting claims to proceeds in the amount of $5,551.53. He joined List and Turn the Hearts in his interpleader complaint to force the two claimants to litigate their claims amongst themselves. Since Millen merely is the stakeholder in this interpleader action, List may only raise matters which go to whether the elements of an interpleader action are present. She has not done so. Thus, List’s reliance on the statute of limitations contained in Code of Civil Procedure section 337 is misplaced at this juncture of this interpleader action.

Accordingly, List’s demurrer to the interpleader complaint is OVERRULED.