Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22STCV37566, Date: 2023-12-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV37566    Hearing Date: December 7, 2023    Dept: 55

NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS:  MOTION FOR ORDER DISCHARGING PLAINTIFF-STAKEHOLDER WELLS FARGO FROM LIABILITY.

The unopposed motion is granted, as prayed.  CCP  § 386.

On 11/30/22, Plaintiff filed a COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER, alleging that defendant EZ DASH contends that a wire of $40,000 to its WELLS FARGO account was authorized by Defendant RONALD COOPER and intended to be deposited to the EZ Account, but COOPER contends that the wire was initiated without his authorization.

On 1/23/23, Defendant COOPER filed a Cross-Complaint against EZ DASH, for CONVERSION,  alleging that he discovered that he was the victim of a scam done by phone calls, which had convinced him to transfer the money.

Moving party requests an order discharging it from liability and dismissing it, after a deposit of $40,000.00, minus the costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred by Wells Fargo in this action, on grounds including the following:

• Wells Fargo holds the funds claimed by both defendants in this action, and the bank is a mere stakeholder and does not assert any interest in the disputed funds. See Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 386 and 386.6.
• Wells Fargo advised EZDASH concerning Mr. Cooper’s demand for return of the Proceeds; however, EZDASH insisted that it was entitled to retain the proceeds. (Comp. ¶ 10; Rose Decl. ¶ 9.)
• Wells Fargo is indifferent as to which defendant will ultimately obtain the disputed funds.
• The bank is unable to determine, without exposure to double or multiple liability, whose claims are valid.
• Wells Fargo requests that a total of $14,198.44 be deducted from the amount of deposit with the Court. (Rapkine Decl. ¶ 7.)  Wells Fargo’s total fees and costs through the end of May 2023 are $13,554.44. (Rapkine Decl. ¶¶ 3-5; Exh. A [Invoices].) Wells Fargo also requests that an additional $644.00 be deducted from the interpleaded funds, which represents a low-end estimate of the anticipated attorneys’ fees and costs to be incurred through the date that Wells Fargo can exit this action. (Rapkine Decl. ¶ 6.) 

The Court finds that the motion is based upon sufficient grounds for an interpleader complaint, including Plaintiff’s being a disinterested holder of funds in dispute by others.

After a stakeholder’s right to interplead is shown, and the money over which conflicting claims have been made, is deposited with the court, the stakeholder may be discharged from liability.  E.g., City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.

In an interpleader proceeding, when discharging a stakeholder, judges have discretion to award them their costs and reasonable attorney fees out of an amount that has been deposited with the court.  Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. v. Zinnel (2004) 125 Cal. App. 4th 393, 400;  Canal Ins. Co. v. Tackett (2004) 117 Cal. App. 4th 239, 244;  UAP-Columbus JV 236132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1036.   The amount of attorney fees and costs must be restricted to those incurred as to the interpleader remedy.  Sweeney v. McClaran (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 824, 830. Here, the declaration of counsel Michael Rapkine and the attached invoices establishes that the fees and costs sought by Wells Fargo are reasonable. The Court therefore will sign the proposed order granting the motion that Wells Fargo submitted.