Pruco Life Insurance Company v. Parineh et al

Filing 43

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE Responses due by 1/6/2016.. Signed by Judge Alsup on 12/23/15. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/23/2015) (Additional attachment(s) added on 12/23/2015: # 1 Certificate/Proof of Service) (dt, COURT STAFF).

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

PRUCO LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17

No. C 12-03527 WHA

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,

REQUEST FOR RESPONSE

Defendants.
/

18
19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

Court, which petition remains pending.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

Court.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9
Dated: December 23, 2015.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2