Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03527/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03527-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 110
Nature of Suit: Insurance
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Insurance Contract

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

POOROUSHASB PARINEH, individually,

AUSTIAJ PARINEH, individually and as

co-trustee of the Parineh Family

Irrevocable Trust dated June 24, 1996

(“PFIT”), HORMOZ PARINEH,

individually and as co-trustee of the PFIT,

and KHASHAYAR PARINEH,

individually and as co-trustee of the PFIT,

Defendants. /

No. C 12-03527 WHA

ORDER GRANTING MOTION

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF

DEFENDANTS AUSTIAJ

PARINEH, HORMOZ PARINEH,

AND KHASHAYAR PARINEH

INTRODUCTION

In this interpleader action involving a life insurance policy, the stakeholder has been

dismissed. The co-contingent beneficiaries of the policy move for summary judgment that they

are entitled to the proceeds of the policy, inasmuch as the primary beneficiary has been

convicted of murdering the insured. To the extent stated below, the motion for summary

judgment of the co-contingent beneficiaries is GRANTED.

STATEMENT

Plaintiff Pruco Life Insurance Company issued a life insurance policy, number V1 204

487, for $1.75 million on the life of Parima Parineh, which named her husband, defendant

Pooroushasb (“Peter”) Parineh as the primary beneficiary. Their children, defendants Austiaj

Parineh, Hormoz Parineh, and Khashayar Parineh were named co-contingent beneficiaries

(Compl., Exh. A). The insured died in 2010, and Peter Parineh was charged with her murder.

Case 3:12-cv-03527-WHA Document 56 Filed 09/02/16 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Pruco commenced this interpleader action in 2012 and named Peter, Austiaj, Hormoz,

and Khashayar as defendants. Pruco conceded that it owed death benefits of $1.75 million, but

it could not determine who is entitled to receive the death benefits because Peter may have

forfeited his right to the benefits if he killed his wife. A prior judge ordered Pruco to deposit a

check in the amount of $1.75 million with the Clerk, and upon deposit of the check, discharged

Pruco from the action (Dkt. No. 19). Pruco deposited a check in the amount of $1,822,338.75

with the Court, comprising the death benefit plus claim interest (Dkt. No. 26).

In 2012, after a jury trial, Peter was convicted of murdering his wife in 2013, and timely

appealed. People v. Pooroushasb Parineh, No. SC 74512 (May 23, 2013). Following Peter’s

conviction, his counsel, who had represented him as a courtesy during his criminal prosecution,

moved to withdraw from representation in this action, and Peter agreed to continue pro se (Dkt.

No. 35). Counsel’s motion was granted and the case was stayed pending the appeal (Dkt. Nos.

36–37). The California Court of Appeal affirmed Peter’s conviction. People v. Pooroushashb

Parineh, No. A139246 (Sept. 28, 2015). Peter petitioned for review by the California Supreme

Court, which petition was denied. People v. Pooroushashb Parineh, No. S230434 (Jan. 13,

2016).

The case was reassigned to the undersigned judge, and the parties were asked to provide

a joint status report; however, only the co-contingent beneficiaries filed a status report — Peter

did not respond (Dkt. No. 42).

The co-contingent beneficiaries asked that the stay remain in place while Peter’s petition

for review by the California Supreme Court remained pending, but while that request remained

pending, the California Supreme Court denied Peter’s request for review. The stay was lifted,

and a schedule for the co-contingent beneficiaries to move for summary judgment was set.

The co-contingent beneficiaries timely moved for summary judgment. After missing the

deadline to respond, Peter requested an extension, allegedly due to illness, which leave was

granted. In his response, Peter sought to be provided with an attorney, due to his “slow

English.” Nevertheless, Peter provided a cogent response written in English in which he denied

his guilt for the murder of his wife but failed to address the merits of this action. This order

Case 3:12-cv-03527-WHA Document 56 Filed 09/02/16 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

follows full briefing. No hearing was held because Peter would not have been able to attend

due to his present incarceration.

ANALYSIS

Austiaj Parineh, Hormoz Parineh, and Khashayar Parineh, the co-contingent

beneficiaries on the policy, contend they are entitled to the proceeds, inasmuch as the primary

beneficiary, Peter Parineh, has been convicted of the murder of the decedent. Section 252 of the

California Probate Code provides:

A named beneficiary of a bond, life insurance policy, or other

contractual arrangement who feloniously and intentionally kills the

principal obligee or the person upon whose life the policy is issued

is not entitled to any benefit under the bond, policy, or other

contractual arrangement, and it becomes payable as though the

killer had predeceased the decedent.

Section 254(a) provides that a “final judgment of conviction of felonious and intentional killing

is conclusive for purposes of” Section 252. 

Peter does not deny that he has been convicted of the murder of his wife, that his

conviction is final, or that the law entitles Austiaj, Hormoz, and Khashayar to summary

judgment in their favor in light of those facts. Instead, he cites his petition for a writ of

certiorari to the California Supreme Court, which petition was denied. Those arguments are

irrelevant to the adjudication of this claim for life insurance proceeds. As stated, California law

provides that Peter’s conviction, now final, is dispositive.

Peter’s request that the Court provide an attorney to assist him in light of his “slow

English” is also unavailing. Peter is not entitled to the provision of an attorney in this civil

proceeding, and had more than ample time to respond to this motion. Indeed, in that time, he

provided a cogent response written in English, albeit one that does not preclude the award of

summary judgment to the co-contingent beneficiaries. Moreover, he expressly agreed to

proceed pro se (Dkt. No. 35-2).

Thus, pursuant to California’s “slayer statute,” Austiaj Parineh, Hormoz Parineh, and

Khashayar Parineh are entitled to summary judgment that they are the proper recipients of the

proceeds of the life insurance policy covering their mother, Parima Parineh.

Case 3:12-cv-03527-WHA Document 56 Filed 09/02/16 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

4

CONCLUSION

To the extent stated above, the motion for summary judgment of the co-contingent

beneficiaries, Austiaj Parineh, Hormoz Parineh, and Khashayar Parineh is GRANTED. Final

judgment will follow. 

Thoits Law, counsel of record for the co-contingent beneficiaries, shall contact the Court

Registry within TEN DAYS of the issuance of this order to provide all necessary information to

effect the distribution of the proceeds. Counsel shall file a notice informing the Court that such

information has been provided. No funds shall be released without a further order from this

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 2, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-03527-WHA Document 56 Filed 09/02/16 Page 4 of 4