Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03527/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03527-7/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Austiag Parineh
Defendant
Hormoz Parineh
Defendant
Khashayar Parineh
Defendant
Pooroushasb Parineh
Defendant
Pruco Life Insurance Company
Plaintiff

Document Text:

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,

AUSTIAG 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 DENYING

POOROUSHASB PARINEH’S

MOTION FOR

RECONSIDERATION

In this interpleader action, an order granted summary judgment for the co-contingent

beneficiaries on a life insurance policy, Austiag Parineh, Hormoz Parineh, and Khashayar

Parineh, and against the primary beneficiary, Pooroushasb Parineh, on the basis that

Pooroushasb had been convicted of the murder of the decedent. 

Pooroushasb has filed a “Motion to Suppress the Summary Judgement [sic],” which this

order construes as a motion to reconsider under Rule 60. The motion reiterates Pooroushasb’s

denials of his guilt, notes that he has petitioned for a writ of certiorari from the United States

Supreme Court to review his conviction, and notes that he has petitioned for a writ of habeas

corpus. He does not deny that his conviction is final or that his conviction precludes his

Case 3:12-cv-03527-WHA Document 61 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 2
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

recovery under Sections 252 and 254(a) of the California Probate Code. Nor does he offer any

grounds for reconsidering the order granting summary judgment.

Pooroushasb’s motion for reconsideration is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2016. WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-03527-WHA Document 61 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 2