Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03527/USCOURTS-cand-3_12-cv-03527-2/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

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE

In this interpleader action, a prior judge determined that a stay was warranted pending

the appeal of the state-court criminal case in which defendant Pooroushab Parineh has been

convicted of the murder of the owner of the policy in issue here (Dkt. No. 36). The California

Court of Appeal affirmed Parineh’s conviction. People v. Pooroushashb Parineh, No. A139246

(Sept. 28, 2015). Parineh has petitioned for review of his conviction by the California Supreme

Court, which petition remains pending. 

Section 252 of the California Probate Code precludes a named beneficiary of a life

insurance policy who “feloniously and intentionally kills” the person upon whose life the policy

is issued from receiving any benefit under such policy. Section 254 provides that a “final

judgment of conviction is conclusive” for the purposes of Section 252. In the absence of a final

judgment of conviction, the Court may determine the issue by a preponderance of the evidence.

Case 3:12-cv-03527-WHA Document 43 Filed 12/23/15 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

Here, Parineh’s conviction has been affirmed on appeal. Only discretionary review of

the appeal remains available. Accordingly, the Court is inclined to lift the stay. By JANUARY

6, 2016, the parties shall please file briefs NOT TO EXCEED EIGHT PAGES addressing whether

the decision of the California Court of Appeal constitutes a “final judgment of conviction”

under Section 254 notwithstanding Parineh’s petition for review by the California Supreme

Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 23, 2015. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:12-cv-03527-WHA Document 43 Filed 12/23/15 Page 2 of 2