Methven & Associates Professional Corporation v. Paradies-Stroud et al

Filing 160

ORDER REGARDING MOTION FOR DISCHARGE. Signed by Judge JEFFREY S. WHITE on 10/21/14. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 10/21/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
8
9

METHVEN AND ASSOCIATES
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION,

10

No. C 13-01079 JSW

11
v.
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

Plaintiff,
12
13

ORDER REGARDING MOTION
FOR DISCHARGE

SCARLETT PARADIES-STROUD, as
administrator of the ESTATE OF ANDREW
B. STROUD, et al.,

14
Defendants.
15

/

16
17

Now before the Court for consideration is the motion for discharge filed by plaintiff

18

Methven & Associates Professional Corporation (“Plaintiff”). Defendant Steven Ames Brown

19

(“Brown”) opposes the motion in part. Defendants the Estate of Nina Simone, Castle Rock

20

Entertainment, Warner Bros. Entertainment, Inc. and Warner Specialty Films, Inc. d/b/a Warner

21

Independent Pictures joined in the opposition filed Brown. Having considered the parties’

22

papers, relevant legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court finds the matter suitable

23

for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the hearing set for October 31, 2014. See

24

N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

25

Plaintiff moves to be discharged from this action and for an injunction precluding the

26

Defendants from prosecuting any proceeding relating to the property that has been deposited

27

with the Court. It is the requested injunction that Brown opposes. Brown argues that it would

28

preclude him from bringing a malicious prosecution claim against Plaintiff. In its complaint for

1

interpleader, Plaintiff only sought an injunction to bar each defendant from instituting any

2

further action against Plaintiff to recover the property. The Court finds that the injunction

3

requested by Plaintiff in the current motion goes too far, but that the initial injunction requested

4

by Plaintiff is warranted. Therefore, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART

5

Plaintiff’s motion for discharge. The Court HEREBY DISCHARGES Plaintiff from this action

6

and enjoins all defendants from instituting any further action against Plaintiff to recover the

7

property. The Court DENIES the motion for discharge to the extent the injunction sought by

8

Plaintiffs is broader and would include any claims for malicious prosecution.

9

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
Dated: October 21, 2014
JEFFREY S. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2