Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00192/USCOURTS-caed-2_07-cv-00192-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1335 Interpleader Action

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

----oo0oo----

NORCAL GOLD, INC., a California

corporation;

NO. CIV. S-07-0192 WBS KJM

Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

STEVE C. LAUBLY; BERNADETTE

LAUBLY; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICES; 

Defendants.

 ----oo0oo----

Plaintiff Norcal Gold, Inc., brought this action in

interpleader against defendants Steve C. Laubly and Bernadette

Laubly (“Laubly defendants”) and the United States of America

(“United States”). Defendant United States now moves to dismiss

plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

Plaintiff predicates jurisdiction upon 28 U.S.C. § 1331

(federal question) and 28 U.S.C. § 1340 (internal revenue), and

supplemental jurisdiction state law claims under 28 U.S.C. §

Case 2:07-cv-00192-WBS -KJM Document 23 Filed 07/05/07 Page 1 of 3
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

1367. Federal jurisdiction is proper in an interpleader action

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 22 if the plaintiff’s

interpleader claim anticipates claims of the defendants which

would arise under federal law. Morongo Band of Mission Indians

v. California State Board of Equalization, 858 F.2d 1376, 1384

(9th Cir. 1988). 

Here, plaintiff holds money that it may owe either to

Steve and Bernadette Laubley or to the United States. The United

States’ claim to the money arises out of an alleged tax debt of

the Laubleys. The Internal Revenue Service has issued a notice

of levy to plaintiff stating that defendant Steve Laubly owes the

IRS $69,946.22. Mr. Laubly, on the other hand, has sent a letter

to plaintiff stating that the levy was unlawful and improper. 

This is precisely the kind of situation interpleader actions were

designed to cover.

The United States’ claim to the funds is based on

federal law, i.e. a federal tax lien. The Eight Circuit has held

that federal jurisdiction is conferred when an interpleader claim

involves matters affecting the nature and operation of tax liens. 

St. Louis Union Trust Co. v. Stone, 570 F.2d 833, 835 (8th Cir.

1978). Because the Laublys dispute the validity of the levy, the

nature and operation of the liens are affected. Bell & Beckwith

v. United States, 766 F.2d 910 (6th Cir. 1985), cited by the

United States, is distinguishable because the dispute between the

two defendants in that case was purely a question of state law,

in which the validity of the IRS’s lien was not in dispute.

Although the Ninth Circuit has not specifically

addressed the question, in Broadcast Music, Inc., v. Hirsch, 104

Case 2:07-cv-00192-WBS -KJM Document 23 Filed 07/05/07 Page 2 of 3
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

3

F.3d 1163, 1165 (9th Cir. 1997), where a company which licensed

public performance rights in copyrighted musical performances

brought an interpleader action to determine whether the

taxpayer’s creditors or the IRS had the right to the taxpayer’s

assets, the Ninth Circuit stated, “[t]he district court had

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Id. (citing Commercial

Nat’l Bank of Chi. v. Demos, 18 F.3d 485, 489 n.6 (7th Cir.

1994).

For the foregoing reasons, the court concludes it has

federal question jurisdiction over plaintiff’s interpleader claim

here. Significantly, the United States concedes that if its

motion to dismiss were to be granted, plaintiff could file a

complaint in state court, which the United States would then

remove to this court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1442. Such a

circuitous route to get to the same point is not one to be

encouraged.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the United States’ motion

to dismiss be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

DATED: July 3, 2007

Case 2:07-cv-00192-WBS -KJM Document 23 Filed 07/05/07 Page 3 of 3