Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 21STCV14842, Date: 2022-07-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV14842 Hearing Date: July 27, 2022 Dept: 17
Superior
Court of California
County
of Los Angeles
DEPARTMENT 17
TENTATIVE RULING
BROADCAST
MUSIC, INC Plaintiff in Interpleader vs. ALEXANDER
COLLIN BAKER, et al. |
Case No.:
21STCV14842 Hearing
Date: July 27, 2022 |
BMI’s
motion for an order for discharge and awarding attorney fees is GRANTED.
On 4/20/2021,
Broadcast Music, Inc (BMI) filed an complaint in interpleader against Alexander
Collin Baker (Baker), Clara Veseliza Baker aka Clair Marlo, and Adam Bravery,
LLC (Bravery, LLC).
On 8/17/2021,
Baker and Bravery, LLC filed a cross-complaint (XC) against BMI and Erika
Stallings, alleging: (1) declaratory judgment; (2) declaratory judgment; (3)
breach of contract; (4) breach of fiduciary duty; (5) constructive fraud; (6)
intentional infliction of emotional distress; and (7) fraudulent inducement
Now, BMI
moves for an order discharging it from liability and awarding attorney fees.
Discussion
BMI
argues that is entitled to be discharged from liability here, and is entitled
to recover attorney fees because it was forced to incur unnecessary litigation
costs. In full, BMI seeks an order granting the following:
(1) Discharging
BMI from all liability to the defendants Clair Marlo, Alexander C. Baker and
Adam Bravery, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) with respect to (i) interpleaded
funds in the amount of $81,071.41, currently on deposit with the Clerk of the Court;
(ii) the additional sum of $8,950.82 for which BMI has sought an order of the
Court allowing this further amount to be deposited (iii) any future amounts
deposited with the Court (collectively, “Interpleaded Funds”);
(2) Restraining
Defendants, or any of them, from instituting any proceeding against BMI with
respect to the Interpleaded Funds;
(3) Awarding
BMI a total of $88,337 in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs, consisting of
(a) $74,628 in attorney’s fees actually and reasonably incurred; (b) $2,819 in
costs incurred; (c) $4,950.00 of anticipated fees to be incurred through
hearing on this motion; and (d) unpaid sanctions in the amount of $5,940.00
ordered against defendant Alexander C. Baker (“Baker”) for attorney’s fees
incurred defending against Baker’s Motion for Sanctions;
(4) Permitting
BMI to continue to deposit future royalties with the Court until final judgment
or other Order of the Court; and
(5) Dismissing
BMI from the action.
CCP section
386 provides that an interpleader plaintiff may (1) disavow any interest in the
amount being interpleaded, (2) deposit that amount with the court, and (3) seek
and obtain a discharge from liability. (CCP § 386(b).)
Here, BMI has
disclaimed any interest in and deposited the Interpleaded Funds. Moreover, the Defendants
filed answers to the Interpleader and the Court has sustained BMI’s Demurrer to
Baker and Bravery, LLC Cross-Complaint without leave to amend. As such, no
party has any affirmative claims pending against BMI.
In
opposition, Baker attempts to reargue the issue of whether or not BMI has
properly stated a complaint in interpleader. The Court has already determined
that BMI’s complaint in interpleader is proper, and Baker did not move for
reconsideration of that ruling.
Baker’s
opposition fits into a larger pattern of conduct employed throughout this
action wherein Baker has repeatedly attempted to litigate issues already ruled
upon, and has misused judicial resources by engaging in unnecessary motion
practice for the sole purposes of harassment and delay. For example, Baker previously filed a motion
for sanctions, based on BMI’s request for an IDC, which was not only rejected
by this Court, but found to be “not well taken and appears to have no other
purpose but ‘to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in
the cost of litigation.’” (See 4/1/2022 Ruling on Submitted Matter.) The
Court awarded BMI $5,940 in sanctions from Baker for attorney’s fees incurred
by BMI in connection with opposing the Sanctions Motion. (Ibid.)
BMI’s
evidence presented with this motion also persuades the Court that Baker engaged
in abuses of the discovery process for the express purpose of harassing BMI and
causing unnecessary delay.
Based on the foregoing, the Court finds
adequate justification to grant BMI’s motion in full.
It is so ordered.
Dated: July
, 2022
Hon. Jon R.
Takasugi
Judge of the
Superior Court
Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must
send an email to the court at smcdept17@lacourt.org
by 4 p.m. the day prior as directed by the instructions provided on the court
website at www.lacourt.org. If a party submits
on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must
identify the party submitting on the tentative.
If all parties to a motion submit, the court will adopt this
tentative as the final order. If the department
does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the
tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed
off calendar.
Due to Covid-19, the court is
strongly discouraging in-person appearances. Parties, counsel, and court reporters present
are subject to temperature checks and health inquiries, and will be denied entry
if admission could create a public health risk.
The court encourages the parties wishing to argue to appear via L.A.
Court Connect. For more information,
please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517. Your understanding during these difficult
times is appreciated.