Kerley Schaffer LLP, a California Corporation vs. US Bank National Association, a corporation et al

Matter on the Law & Motion / Discovery calendar for Tuesday, October 7, 2025, Line 4. [Part 1 of 2 of the tentative ruling.]

DEFENDANT JOHN HOFMEYER's MOTION TO TRANSFER. Defendant John Hofmeyer moves to transfer this interpleader action to family court to join In re Marriage of Hofmeyer, San Francisco Superior Court No. FDI-180790640, and seeks other relief. For the reasons stated herein the court denies the motion.

Plaintiff Kerley Schaffer LLP has filed this interpleader action concerning a settlement of an insurance policy dispute. It has named as defendants various parties it believes have a claim on the money, including John Hofmeyer ("Hofmeyer") and Gabriela Hofmeyer, who are parties to a dissolution proceeding that is pending in the family court.

"In an interpleader action, the court initially determines the right of the plaintiff to interplead the funds: if that right is sustained, an interlocutory decree is entered which requires the defendants to interplead and litigate their claims to the funds." Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1513 (emphasis in original; citation omitted).

Once the court determines that the plaintiff had a right to interplead funds, the court then has "the power under section [Code of Civil Procedure] section 386 to adjudicate the issues raised by the interpleader action including: the alleged existence of conflicting claims regarding the interpleaded funds; plaintiffs' alleged position as a disinterested mere stakeholder; and ultimately the disposition of the interpleaded funds after deducting plaintiffs' attorney fees." Shopoff & Cavallo LLP, at p. 1514.

Here, the court has not initially determined whether Kerley Schaffer has the right to interplead funds or is subject to discharge. Nor has any court determined the right of any party to the funds deposited by Kerley Schaffer. Hofmeyer's motion does not establish that the family court should make those determinations.

It is true that "[a]fter a family law court acquires jurisdiction to divide community property in a dissolution action, no other department of a superior court may make an order adversely affecting that division." (Askew v. Askew (1994) 22 Cal.App.4th 942, 961.) But the court has not yet determined what, if any, of the deposited funds belongs to the community estate. Thus, there is not yet an occasion to divide the community estate, a task that will belong to the family law court alone.