Court Opinion

ID: 9893561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-27 18:00:47.29723+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:32.685924
License: Public Domain

NOT FOR PUBLICATION                            FILED
                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                        OCT 27 2023
                                                                       MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
                                                                        U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PENN STAR INSURANCE COMPANY, a                  No.    22-55664
Pennsylvania corporation,
                                                D.C. No.
                Plaintiff-Appellee,             2:21-cv-09365-PSG-RAO

 v.
                                                MEMORANDUM*
HENRY AGUILA, an individual,

                Defendant-Appellant,

and

THEE AGUILA, INC., a California
Corporation; JULIE N. NONG, an
individual; JOHN FITZPATRICK
VANNUCCI, an individual; CENTURY
LAW GROUP, LLP, a Limited Liability
Partnership; PICO RIVERA FIRST
MORTGAGE INVESTORS, LP, a limited
partnership; GUINEVERE M. MALLEY, an
individual; ROCIO ROSALES, an
individual; DOES, 1-50, inclusive,

                Defendants.

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Central District of California
                Philip S. Gutierrez, Chief District Judge, Presiding

      *
             This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
                        Argued and Submitted October 18, 2023
                                 Pasadena, California

Before: TASHIMA and H.A. THOMAS, Circuit Judges, and RAKOFF,** District
Judge.

         Henry Aguila appeals the district court’s order enjoining the defendants-in-

interpleader from continuing any action concerning the funds deposited with the

district court by Penn-Star Insurance Company (Penn-Star), ordering Aguila to

dismiss his state court action against Penn-Star with prejudice, and denying

Aguila’s request to file his state court claims as counterclaims in this action.

         We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292. We review the grant of an

injunction for abuse of discretion. Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med.

Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 635 (9th Cir. 2015); Metlakatla Indian Cmty. v. Dunleavy, 58

F.4th 1034, 1042 (9th Cir. 2023). We review the legal conclusions underlying an

injunction de novo. See Metlakatla, 58 F.4th at 1042. We review for abuse of

discretion a district court’s denial of leave to amend. AE ex rel. Hernandez v.

County of Tulare, 666 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2012). We affirm.1

         1. In Lee v. West Coast Life Insurance Co., 688 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012),

we held that “interpleader does not shield [an insurer] from tort liability” where the

         **
            The Honorable Jed S. Rakoff, United States District Judge for the
Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
1
    Because the parties are familiar with the facts, we do not recount them here.

                                            2
insurer is “independently liable to one or more [of the parties claiming a right to

interpleaded funds,]” id. at 1011. We also held that “those who have acted in bad

faith to create a controversy over [a] stake may not claim the protection of

interpleader.” Id. at 1012. Here, none of Aguila’s state court claims plausibly

alleged that Penn-Star created the controversy over the interpleaded funds in this

case or that Penn-Star is liable to Aguila independent of Penn-Star’s decision to

file the interpleader action. The district court thus did not err in enjoining Aguila

from instituting or continuing any action concerning the interpleaded funds and

ordering him to dismiss his state court action with prejudice.

      2. Because the district court did not err in enjoining Aguila from instituting

any actions concerning the interpleaded funds against Penn-Star, it also did not err

in denying Aguila’s request to amend his answer in interpleader to assert his state

court claims as counterclaims. See AE, 666 F.3d at 636 (where amendment would

be futile, a district court does not abuse its discretion in denying leave to amend).

      AFFIRMED.2

2
  We DENY Penn-Star’s motion to take judicial notice of various proceedings
relating to a demurrer filed by Penn-Star in Aguila’s state court action (Dkt. No.
20).

                                           3