Judge: Jon R. Takasugi, Case: 23STCV28588, Date: 2024-03-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV28588    Hearing Date: March 7, 2024    Dept: 17

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

DEPARTMENT 17

TENTATIVE RULING

Foster’s motion for an order to deposit stock certificates with the Clerk of the Court is GRANTED. Foster is awarded $13,570.17 in attorney fees and costs from claimants, jointly and severally.

On 11/21/2023, Plaintiff Michael A. Foster filed a complaint in interpleader against Wen Xie, Ravinder S. Grewal, Happy Day, Inc dba Baker Travel Plaza., and Glenwind Enterprises.

On 1/30/2024, Michael A. Foster moved for an order to deposit stock certificates with the Court. Foster also seeks attorney fees and costs totaling $13,570.17.

Factual Background

            Foster seeks to deposit stock certificates which are in his possession, and which are the subject of a dispute over ownership. That ownership dispute is the subject of Case No. 23STCV12560 (Xie Action), filed by Xie against the co-Defendants in this action. 

Discussion

            Foster seeks an order to deposit stock certificates with the Court on the grounds that:

1.      Stakeholder has no interest in the Stock Certificates and is merely a stakeholder with respect to the Stock Certificates.

2.      Conflicting demands have been asserted against Stakeholder concerning entitlement to the Stock Certificates by the claimants as set forth in the Declaration of Stakeholder Michael A. Foster.

3.      The claimants mentioned in the Declaration of Stakeholder Michael A. Foster have asserted conflicting demands on Stakeholder. Stakeholder cannot determine with certainty which, if any, demand is valid.

In opposition, Xie indicated that he did not oppose Foster’s motion as to the delivery of the stock certificates to the Court.

However, Xie opposes the request for attorney fees, arguing that he is the prevailing party, and any costs or fees in connection with this Complaint and/or motion, should be against Foster’s co-Defendants alone.

After review, the Court disagrees with Xie.

First, as noted by Foster in reply, the Xie Action was brought a week after Foster filed this interpleader action. As such, despite Foster having already sought to deposit the certificates with the Court, Xie asserted claims for constructive trust and declaratory relief, seeking the same relief as that sought in this action, aware that Stakeholder had already filed this interpleader action. The Court agrees that “[t]he Court should not consider as a prevailing party, a defendant that brings a subsequent action simply mirroring the relief requested in a prior action asserted against him.” (Reply, 2: 24-25.)

Moreover, Foster’s request is based on CCP section 386, subdivision (f), which states, “[a]fter any such complaint or cross-complaint in interpleader has been filed, the court in which it is filed 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.” As such, Xie cannot frame his requested relief in the Xie Action as being obtained by way of this Motion. Rather, if this Motion is granted, he will be affirmatively restrained from otherwise proceeding against Foster in the Xie Action or any other action concerning these issues. 

Thus, the Court declines to find that Xie is the prevailing party.

Second, CCP section 386.6 provides: “[i]n ordering the discharge of such party, the court may, in its discretion, award such party his costs and reasonable attorney fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court.” (CCP § 386.6.) Nothing in the statute provides that such fees and costs can be obtained from some claimants and not others, and, notably, Xie did not offer any authority supporting his argument, which is a waiver of the issue. (Trinity Risk Management, LLC v. Simplified Labor Staffing Solutions, Inc. (2021) 59 Cal.App.5th 995, 1008 [the failure to support a point with reasoned argument and citations to authority results in waiver].)

Moreover, while Xie argues that only Claimant Grewal should be liable for costs and fees because he was the only party that objected to the delivery of the stock certificates to Xie, the very fact of multiple parties claiming ownership of the same property is precisely why this Interpleader was necessary in the first place. There is also no evidence that Foster’s Interpleader was unnecessary or was intentionally designed to incur fees and costs. Accordingly, the Court agrees with Defendant that the fees and costs are appropriately placed on all claimants, jointly and severally.

Xie did not object to or dispute the amount of attorney fees and costs incurred. Accordingly, the Court considers this a concession on the merits to the amount.

Based on the foregoing, Foster’s motion for an order to deposit stock certificates with the Clerk of the Court is granted. Foster is awarded $13,570.17 in attorney fees and costs from claimants, jointly and severally.

It is so ordered.

Dated:  March    , 2024

   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.  For more information, please contact the court clerk at (213) 633-0517.