Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV00580, Date: 2022-12-09 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22SMCV00580 Hearing Date: December 9, 2022 Dept: 207
Background
This action stems from a dispute regarding construction work
performed at a property owned by Plaintiff Perry Roshan-Zamir (“Roshan-Zamir”)
in Santa Monica, California. Roshan-Zamir’s operative Complaint was filed on
April 25, 2022, and asserts causes of action against Evans Joel Coronado
(“Coronado”), J Powers Electric, and Western Surety Company (“Western”). On
June 17, 2022, Western filed a Cross-Complaint for interpleader against
Roshan-Zamir as well as against Coronado individually and dba J Powers
Electric. Western now brings this motion for deposit and discharge of
stakeholder, seeking to deposit the amount of a Contractor’s
State License Bond issued by Western to Coronado, individually and dba J Powers
Electric, less an award of attorney’s fees incurred by Western in connection
with the interpleader action.
Western’s motion is unopposed.
Legal Standard
Interpleader is a procedure
whereby a person holding money or personal property to which conflicting claims
are being made by others, can join the adverse claimants and force them to
litigate their claims among themselves. (C.C.P. § 386; Hancock Oil Co. v.
Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal. 2d 497, 508; City of Morgan Hill v. Brown
(1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122-23.)
Once
the stakeholder’s right to interplead is established, and he or she deposits
the money or personal property in court, he or she may be discharged from
liability to any of the claimants. This enables the stakeholder to avoid a
multiplicity of actions, and the risk of inconsistent results if each of the
claimants were to sue him or her separately. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust
Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 874; City of Morgan Hill, supra,
71 Cal.App.4th at 1122.)
“An interpleader action is
traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the
claimants to determine the stakeholder's right to interplead, and the other
among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded ...
As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to
whether the suit is properly one for interpleader; i.e., whether the elements
of an interpleader action are present.” (State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v.
Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 612.)
If the defendant stakeholder
claims no interest in the funds or property held, he or she need not file an
interpleader cross-complaint. He or she may simply apply to the court for
permission to deposit the money or property with the court clerk, and for an
order discharging him or her from further liability to the adverse claimants.
Such order will also substitute the adverse claimants as parties to the action;
or, if only money is involved, simply dismiss the stakeholder. (C.C.P. §§
386(a), 386.5.) The motion must be supported by an affidavit by the stakeholder
establishing the ground for interpleader. (C.C.P. § 386(a).) The
supporting affidavit must also state that the moving party is “a mere
stakeholder with no interest in the amount or any portion thereof and that
conflicting demands have been made upon him for the amount by parties to the
action…” (C.C.P. § 386.5.) Notice of the motion must be served on each of the
adverse claimants to the funds or property. (C.C.P. §§ 386(a), 386.5.) “Where a
deposit has been made pursuant to Section 386, the court shall, upon the
application of any party to the action, order such deposit to be invested in an
insured interest-bearing account.” (C.C.P. § 386.1.)
Pursuant to § 386(f), the court may also “enter may enter
its order restraining all parties to the action from instituting or further
prosecuting any other proceeding in any court in this state affecting the
rights and obligations as between the parties to the interpleader until further
order of the court.” (C.C.P. § 386(f).)
The stakeholder may seek
reimbursement for its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred. (C.C.P. §
386.6; UAPColumbus JV 326132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028,
1036.) The court may order payment thereof out of the funds deposited by the
stakeholder. (C.C.P. § 386.6.)
Analysis
1. Motion
to Dismiss and Discharge
The subject matter of the instant Motion
is a $15,000 Contractor’s State License Bond issued to Cross-Defendant Coronado,
individually and dba J Powers Electric, as principal. (Sosa Decl. ¶2.)
Western filed a verified Cross-Complaint
in Interpleader naming the claimants to the bond—Coronado, individually and dba
J Powers Electric, and Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Roshan-Zamir. (Id. at
¶¶ 3-4) Western contends “it does not know and cannot determine the respective merits
of the remaining claimants which are conflicting claims against the subject bond.”
(Id. at ¶8.) Western states it “has no interest in the proceeds of Bond No.
63387796 and is a mere stakeholder with respect thereto pursuant to CCP § 386.5.”
(Id.) Western requests permission from the Court to deposit the $15,000 bond
with the Court, less attorney’s fees and costs, and be discharged from further liability
to claimants in regard to this bond. (Motion at 2.) It also requests that the Court
issue a restraining order against claimants and all other persons from instituting
further legal action against Old Republic with respect to this bond, pursuant to
Code of Civil Procedure § 386(f). (Id. at 3.)
The Court finds Western has satisfied
all requirements for the instant Motion. Cross-Defendants Roshan-Zamir and
Coronado have filed notices of non-opposing stating they do not oppose
Western’s requested relief. Accordingly, the Court finds Western is entitled to
be dismissed and discharged from liability once it deposits the funds with the clerk
of the Court as well as an order restraining all parties “from instituting or further
prosecuting any other proceeding” related to Western’s rights and obligations under
the bond.
2. Attorney’s
Fees and Costs
The stakeholder may seek reimbursement
for its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred. (C.C.P. § 386.6; UAPColumbus,
supra, 234 Cal.App.3d at 1036.) The court may order payment thereof out of the
funds deposited by the stakeholder. (C.C.P. § 386.6.)
Western requests $850 in attorney’s
fees and costs related to the interpleader. (Sosa Decl. at ¶6.) The costs are as
follows: $435 in filing fees, $75 in service fees as to Cross-Defendant
Coronado, individually, and dba J Powers Electric, and $60 in filing fees for the
instant Motion. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel has attached an itemized statement
containing details of the billing of attorney’s fees and states that an additional
$510 will be billed for the preparation of the moving papers. (Ex. 1 to Sosa
Decl.) The Court notes the billing statements submitted by Western shows it has
incurred attorney’s fees in connection with this matter in excess of $1,500. The
Court finds Western’s request for reduced award of $850 cumulatively in fees
and costs is reasonable and GRANTS Western’s request for an award attorney’s fees
and costs of $850, to be deducted from the interpleader funds prior to their deposit
with the Court, resulting in a net deposit of $14,150.00.
Conclusion
Western’s Motion to Deposit and Discharge Stakeholder,
Request for Restraining Order, and for Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED,
contingent on Western’s deposit of funds with the Court in the amount of
$14,150.00. Interpleader funds of $14,150.00 are to be deposited within ten
(10) days of receipt of this order