Howard W Lake vs. Brian Scott Gragert

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING:

The Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Moving party’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and the Solano County Department of Child Support Services forthwith to advise them of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If moving party’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel and the Solano County Department of Child Support Services prior to the hearing, they shall be available at the hearing in the event a party appears without following the procedures set forth in Local

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00243276-CU-PA-GDS: Howard W Lake vs. Brian Scott Gragert 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Regarding Deposit and Dismissal in Department 8C

Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant Brian Gragert’s (“Moving Defendant”) Motion for Order re Deposit and Dismissal is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

This action arises out of a motor vehicle accident that occurred on October 26, 2016. Moving Defendant and Defendant James Gragert, along with their insurer, Viking Insurance Company of Wisconsin (“Viking”), entered into a settlement agreement with Plaintiff Howard Lake (“Plaintiff”) for the policy limit of $25,000.00. (Decl. of Andrew F. Noble ISO Mot. (“Noble Decl.”) ¶ 2.) In August of 2020, Viking received a notice of lien from the Child Department of Social Services (“CDSS”). (Noble Decl. ¶ 3.) As CDSS’s lien is statutory, Viking cannot pay the agreed upon settlement funds to Plaintiff without including CDSS in the agreement. (Id. at ¶ 3.) Plaintiff and CDSS have been unable to agree upon apportionment of the funds. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Moving Defendant now moves to deposit the $25,000.00 settlement amount with the court clerk to allow the Court to adjudicate the apportionment of the settlement among the claimants to the funds. (Noble Decl. ¶ 6.) Moving Defendant also asks the Court to be dismissed from the action without prejudice upon deposit of the funds with the Court. The proof of service filed with the motion shows that Plaintiff and CDSS were served with the moving papers.

“Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or property to which conflicting claims are being made by others, can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate the claims by themselves.” (Weil & Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civ. Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2026 Update) ¶ 2:470.) “The stakeholder (party against whom conflicting claims are being made) may interplead the money or property in court in various ways . . . .” (Id. at ¶ 2:480.) “If the stakeholder has already been sued by one or more of the adverse claimants, and wishes to interplead the other claimants,” the “defendant-stakeholder may file a verified cross-complaint joining the other adverse claimants.” (Id. at ¶¶ 2:485, 2:486; see Code Civ.

Proc., § 386, subd. (b).) Alternatively, if the defendant-stakeholder “claims no interest in the funds or property held, an interpleader cross-complaint need not be filed. The defendant-stakeholder may simply apply to the court for permission to deposit the money or property with the court clerk, and for an order discharging that person from further liability to the adverse claimants.” (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶ 2:489; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a), 386.5.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

34-2018-00243276-CU-PA-GDS: Howard W Lake vs. Brian Scott Gragert 07/15/2026 Hearing on Motion for Order Regarding Deposit and Dismissal in Department 8C

Such an application must be supported by an affidavit establishing the grounds for interpleader, and notice of the motion must be served on each of the adverse claimants to the funds/property. (Weil & Brown, supra, at ¶¶ 2:490-2:491; Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a), 386.5.)

Moving Defendant has shown his entitlement to the relief requested. Further, the motion is unopposed. A party’s failure to oppose a motion is construed as a concession on the merits of the motion. (See D.I. Chadbourne, Inc. v. Superior Court (1964) 60 Cal.2d 723, 728, n.4.)]

Moving Defendant’s motion will be granted upon deposit of the $25,000.00 with the Court.

The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the moving papers.