Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 870
Nature of Suit: Tax Suits
Cause of Action: 28:1444 Petition for Removal- Foreclosure

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

Two other cross-defendants, specifically, the United States Department of Treasury

- Internal Revenue Service and the California State Franchise Tax Board, have not filed a

joinder or any other response to the motion. The remaining cross-defendant, Rene Frelow,

has not appeared herein.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Defendant ___________________________________

ALLIANCE TITLE CO.,

Cross-complainant,

 v.

JEAN-CHRISTOPHE LIEBESKIND, et al.,

Cross-defendants

 /

No. C-07-3962 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED CROSSCOMPLAINT AND FOR LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED COMPLAINT; VACATING

HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiffs/cross-defendants Jean-Christophe Liebeskind, Clothilde

De Muralt, and Alenxandre Liebeskind’s “Motion to Dismiss Cross-Complaint and for Leave

to File Amended Complaint,” filed October 15, 2007. Cross-complainant/ defendant

Alliance Title Co. (“Alliance”) has filed opposition, to which plaintiffs have replied.1 Having

read and considered the papers submitted in support and in opposition to the motion, the

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 27 Filed 11/29/07 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, VACATES the hearing scheduled for

November 30, 2007, and rules as follows:

1. Contrary to plaintiffs’ argument, the First Amended Cross-Complaint (“FACC”) is

not subject to dismissal. Plaintiffs cite no authority providing that a complaint in

interpleader, proceeding under Rule 22 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, must be

verified, and are incorrect that the FACC fails to allege the existence of a dispute among

the claimants as to the interpleaded funds. (See, e.g., FACC ¶¶ 6-8, 12.) To the extent

plaintiffs contend a dispute as to the interpleaded funds no longer exists, thus rendering the

complaint in interpleader moot, such argument likewise fails, as plaintiffs have provided no

evidence that all claims to said funds, including that of Alliance for attorney’s fees, have

been resolved by the parties.

2. Plaintiffs have not submitted a proposed amended complaint, as required by the

Local Rules of this District, see Civil L.R. 10-1, nor have plaintiffs otherwise identified the

nature of any proposed amendment to their complaint. Consequently, the Court cannot

determine whether leave to amend is proper, and, accordingly, will deny without prejudice

plaintiffs’ request for leave to amend their complaint.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated, plaintiffs’ motion to dismiss the FACC and for leave to

amend is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 27 Filed 11/29/07 Page 2 of 2