Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 18STCV08764, Date: 2023-03-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 18STCV08764    Hearing Date: March 20, 2023    Dept: 68

Diana Kasian, et al. vs. Blake Leibel, et al., Case No. 18STCV08764

Motion for a Certified Order Directing the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to Reimburse the $10,000.00 Cash Bond Paid by Plaintiffs in Security for a Real Property Lien

Moving Party – Plaintiffs Diana Kasian, Olga Kasian, and Estate of Iana Kasian

Responding Party – None

Moving Party’s Position

            On March 11, 2021, Plaintiffs paid to the Los Angeles County Sheriff a $10,000.00 cash bond to secure a sheriff’s lien on the property located at 1331 Schuyler Road, Beverly Hills, California 90210. On May 5, 2021, Plaintiffs and Defendant Amanda Braun, owner of the Subject Property, entered into a settlement agreement thereby resolving the dispute over the Subject Property from the case. In a January 4, 2023, Sheriff’s Department Memorandum to Plaintiffs’ Attorney, Plaintiffs’ request for reimbursement of the bond was returned without action stating that a certified court order was required to refund the $10,000.00 cash bond. (Conroy Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. 2.) Plaintiff filed the current motion on February 15, 2023, to secure a court order for the reimbursement of the cash bond from the Sheriff’s Department.

Opposition

            No opposition has been filed as of March 15, 2023.

Analysis

            Pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 128(a), the Court has the power “[t]o control in furtherance of justice, the conduct of its ministerial officers, and of all other persons in any manner connected with a judicial proceeding before it...” (CCP § 128(a)(5).) On the other hand, the sheriff’s “powers and duties are ministerial in their nature. [The sheriff] is an officer of the court, and should render obedience to the mandates of court unless the process or order appears upon its face to be illegal or that it was issued without jurisdiction.” (Sparks v. Buckner (1936) 14 Cal.App.2d 213, 220.) “The sheriff has no authority to let the property under attachment go out of his hands, except in due course of law.” (Id. at 219.)

            Because Plaintiffs have entered into a settlement agreement with the owner of the property, the property is no longer at issue, and so good cause exists to reimburse the cash bond. Additionally, reimbursing the cash bond will not prejudice the remaining Defendant, as he has no interest in the cash bond. The Sheriff’s Department cannot reimburse the $10,000.00 cash bond without a court order. Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiffs’ motion and orders the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department to reimburse Plaintiff’s $10,000.00 cash bond.