The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lucy H. Koh United States District Judge
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS THE PROBATE CODE § 252 PORTION OF THIS ACTION
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
This case is an interpleader action brought by Plaintiff State Farm Life Insurance Company ("State Farm") to resolve competing claims to an insurance policy by Defendants Jason Cai and the Estate of Ying Deng (the "Estate"). Currently before the Court is a motion by Defendant Jason Cai 20 to dismiss the portion of this case brought under California Probate Code § 252. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7-1(b), the Court concludes that this motion is appropriate for determination without 22 oral argument. Having considered the parties' submissions and the relevant law, the Court DENIES Defendant's motion to dismiss.
This case involves a life insurance policy issued by State Farm to insure the life of Ying Deng in the amount of $250,000. Compl. ¶ 6. When issued, the policy named Defendant Jason Cai as primary beneficiary and did not name any successor beneficiaries. Id. Ying Deng died on 28 or about May 28, 2003, at which time $250,000 became due and payable under the life insurance policy. Compl. ¶¶ 7-8. The Estate claims that Cai feloniously and intentionally killed his wife, Ying Deng, and that California Probate Code § 252 therefore mandates that the insurance proceeds 3 pass to the Estate as though Cai predeceased Ying Deng. Cross-Claim for Declaration of Rights 4 under Insurance Policy ¶¶ 5-7, ECF No. 23. Defendant Cai denies the Estate's allegations and 5 claims that he is entitled to the insurance proceeds as primary beneficiary of Ying Deng's 6 insurance policy. Cross-Complaint of Complaint in Interpleader ¶ 2, ECF No. 12. Defendant Cai 7 has now moved "to dismiss [the] Probate Code 252 portion of this case" on grounds that the statute 8 of limitations for wrongful death actions has expired. Mot. to Dismiss This Case with Probate Code 252 ("Def.'s Mot."), ECF No. 53.
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250 F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001). A Rule 12(b)(6) 13 dismissal may be based on either a lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient 14 facts alleged under a cognizable legal theory. Johnson v. Riverside Healthcare System, LP, 534 15 F.3d 1116, 1121 (9th Cir. 2008). In considering whether the complaint is sufficient to state a 16 claim, the court must accept as true all of the factual allegations contained in the complaint. "allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit" or "allegations 19 that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences." St. Clare v. Gilead Scis., Inc. (In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.), 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008). While a 21 complaint need not allege detailed factual allegations, it "must contain sufficient factual matter, 22 accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949 (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A claim is facially plausible when it "allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1949. If a court grants a motion to dismiss, leave to 26 amend should be granted unless the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts. Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000).
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009). However, the court need not accept as true
Defendant Cai moves to "dismiss Probate Code 252 portion of this case." Def.'s Mot. 1.
The Court construes Defendant Cai's submission as a motion to dismiss the Estate's Cross-Claim, 4 which seeks a declaration that California Probate Code § 252 requires the insurance proceeds to 5 pass to the Estate. Cross-Claim for Declaration of Rights under Insurance Policy ¶¶ 5-7 & p. 3, A named beneficiary of a bond, life insurance policy, or other contractual arrangement who feloniously and intentionally kills the principal obligee or the person upon whose life the policy is issued is not entitled to any benefit under the bond, policy, or other contractual arrangement, and it becomes payable as though the killer had predeceased the decedent.
The Estate claims that Cai feloniously and intentionally killed his wife, Ying Deng, and that California Probate Code § 252 therefore mandates that the insurance proceeds pass to the Estate as though Cai predeceased Ying Deng. In his motion, Cai argues that the Cross-Claim based on California Probate Code § 252 is barred because the statute of limitations for a wrongful death 14 action has expired. Cai also claims that a wrongful death action has already been filed and dismissed in state court. The Court finds that the Cross-Claim of the Estate is not barred by the 16 statute of limitations for wrongful death, nor is it barred by the alleged procedural dismissal of the wrongful death action in state court. individual caused by the wrongful act of another. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 335.1. Statutes of 21 limitations are intended to prevent needless delay in resolving grievances. Polar Bear Prods., Inc. 22 v. Timex Corp., 384 F.3d 700, 706 (9th Cir. 2004). After the statute of limitations has expired, 23 commencement of the action is barred. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 312. As such, statutes of limitations 24 only govern when a lawsuit must be filed, and do not proscribe discussion of the underlying facts 25 in unrelated matters. Cf. City of Saint Paul v. Evans, 344 F.3d 1029, 1033 (9th Cir. 2003)
No claim of wrongful death, or any other personal injury, exists in the present action. California Probate Code § 252 prohibits a beneficiary who feloniously and intentionally kills the ECF ...