Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 23STCV29632, Date: 2024-10-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV29632    Hearing Date: October 30, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTY: Defendant and Cross-Complainant VST 2020-NPL1 REO, LLC (“VST”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff ESCROW OF THE WEST (“Plaintiff” or “Escrow”)

            The Court has considered the moving, opposition and reply papers.

BACKGROUND

             On December 4, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint in interpleader against VST; Awal Investment, LLC; and Yona Investment Group, LLC, related to the escrow transaction opened for the sale of a property, for which Plaintiff provided escrow services. 

            On April 2, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Discharge, Dismissal and Deposit of Funds (“Motion for Discharge”), seeking an order allowing it to deposit disputed funds, to be discharged from further liability, and to recover attorneys’ fees and costs.

On July 9, 2024, the Court issued a Minute Order granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Discharge, which provided, in relevant part, as follows:

For good cause shown, relief is proper per CCP sections 386 and 386.5. Plaintiff is awarded fees and costs in the amount of $5,423.98. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6) Plaintiff is to be discharged from liability and dismissed from the action for interpleader upon deposit of $63,000. The funds are to be deposited within 10 days.

(07/09/2024 Minute Order.)

            On July 11, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a declaration requesting a correction to the 7/9/2024 Minute Order to state that Plaintiff is to deposit $63,000 less the attorney’s fees award of $5,423.98, which amounts to $57,576.02.  On July 12, 2024, the Court entered the Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion For Discharge, Dismissal And Deposit Of Funds By Escrow Of The West (the “Order”).

            On July 29, 2024, VST filed the instant Motion for Clarification of Order Granting Plaintiff’s Motion for Discharge, Dismissal and Deposit of Funds by Escrow of the West (the “Motion”).  Escrow filed an opposition on October 2, 2024, and VST filed a reply on October 11, 2024. 

DISCUSSION

            A trial court has inherent authority to control its proceedings and enforce its orders. (See Code of Civ. Proc., § 128 et seq.; Cal. Const. Art. VI, §§ 1, 4, & 10.)  Code of Civil Procedure section187 provides the Court with “all the means necessary to carry [its jurisdiction] into effect.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 187 [“When jurisdiction is, by the Constitution or this Code, or by any other statute, conferred on a Court or judicial officer, all the means necessary to carry it into effect are also given; and in the exercise of this jurisdiction, if the course of proceeding be not specifically pointed out by this Code or the statute, any suitable process or mode of proceeding may be adopted which may appear most conformable to the spirit of this Code.”].)

In reviewing a motion for a clarification of a prior order, the court has the discretion to either approve the clarifications or reject them.  (See, e.g., Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Superior Court (1982) 31 Cal. 3d 785; Center for Biological Diversity v. County of San Bernardino (2010) 185 Cal. App. 4th 866; and Lopez v. Larson (1979) 91 Cal. App. 3d 383.)

Here, VST requests clarification of this Court’s July 12, 2024 Order (the “Order”).  Specifically, VST seeks to clarify whether, through the Order, the Court intended to order that: (1) Escrow is discharged and dismissed from the entirety of the dispute between the parties, including VST’s Cross-Complaint; and (2) that the parties are restrained from further prosecuting any actions against Escrow as to the events, acts, or omissions underlying the interpleader complaint, including VST’s Cross-Complaint.

The Court finds that clarification is necessary to accurately reflect its ruling in the Minute Order dated July 9, 2024.  July 9, 2024 ruling, which discharged Escrow from liability and dismissed it from the interpleader action only.  A correction to the Order is required to ensure due process for VST and to preserve its right to pursue any claims it may have against Escrow that do not relate to or arise from Escrow’s interpleader of funds.

RULING

            Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motion, and clarifies that Escrow is discharged  from liability in the interpleader action only.  The July 12, 2024 Order is amended as follows:

Paragraph 1 should read: “That Plaintiff, ESCROW OF THE WEST’s, motion for discharge and dismissal is GRANTED, and ESCROW OF THE WEST, is discharged from any liability to defendants arising from the funds interpleaded with the court, and dismissed from the interpleader action.”

Paragraph 2 is stricken.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.           

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 30th day of October 2024