Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-03962-0/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

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 STIPULATION TO

TRANSFER FUNDS

The Court is in receipt of the parties’ “Stipulation to Transfer Funds to United States

District Court,” filed November 16, 2007.

In their stipulation, the parties to the above-titled interpleader action request that the

Court order the Clerk of the Superior Court of California, in and for the County of San

Francisco, to transfer to the Clerk of the District Court certain funds currently on deposit

with the Clerk of the Superior Court, specifically, $285,048.05 deposited therewith by

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 26 Filed 11/19/07 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

1

The instant action, upon removal, proceeds under Rule 22, and the Court has

jurisdiction over the action in light of ATC’s allegation that the Internal Revenue Service has

a claim to the funds, or some portion thereof. See Morongo Band of Mission Indians v.

California State Board of Equalization, 858 F. 2d 1376, 1384 (9th Cir. 1988) (holding district

court has jurisdiction over interpleader action under Rule 22 “if the cause(s) of action

anticipated by the plaintiff’s suit would arise under federal law”).

2

Alliance Title Co. (“ATC”), as well as any interest that has accumulated on said sum.

The parties cite no authority providing that a district court has the power to order a

state court to transfer funds that were, at the time of the deposit, properly deposited

therewith. Even assuming, arguendo, the Court has such power, the parties fail to indicate

why it is necessary for the Court to issue such an order. “[D]eposit of the disputed funds in

the [federal district] court’s registry . . . is not a jurisdictional requirement to [R]ule 22(1)

interpleader.” Gelfgren v. Republic Nat’l Life Ins. Co., 680 F. 2d 79, 81-82 (9th Cir. 1982).1

Moreover, the Court could, upon determination of the ownership of the disputed funds,

direct ATC to retrieve the funds from the Clerk of the Superior Court and disburse the funds

to the proper owner(s), or make such other order as it deems necessary to effectuate

proper distribution. Further, to the extent the parties may wish, for convenience or other

reasons, to have the funds on deposit with the Clerk of the District Court, there is no

showing they have sought to withdraw the funds and that the Clerk of the Superior Court

has refused to allow such withdrawal.

Accordingly, the stipulation is hereby DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 19, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-03962-MMC Document 26 Filed 11/19/07 Page 2 of 2