Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 21STLC05184, Date: 2022-07-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STLC05184    Hearing Date: July 26, 2022    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS:      MOTION TO DISMISS, DISCHARGE PLAINTIFF FROM LIABILITY AND FOR COSTS AND FEES

MOVING PARTY:   Plaintiff Lyle Mink

RESP. PARTY:         None

MOTION TO DISMISS, DISCHARGE LIABILITY, AND FOR COSTS

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Lyle Mink’s Motion for Orders of Discharge and Dismissal of Plaintiff is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s request for payment of costs of $288.90 is also GRANTED, to be paid from the interpleaded funds.

SERVICE: 

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300)                 OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a)                                                 OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b))                     OK

OPPOSITION:          None filed as of July 21, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

REPLY:                     None filed as of July 21, 2022.               [   ] Late                      [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

On July 15, 2021, Plaintiff Lyle Mink (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in interpleader against Defendants Pensco Trust Company fbo Caesar Berger, IRA 50%, Pensco Trust Company fbo Inna Berger, IRA 50%, Payman Taheri, and Felix Bobritsky (“collectively Defendants.”)  In an underlying action, Bobritsky v. Mink, 20SMSC00130, the Court had entered judgment against Plaintiff and in favor of Bobritsky in the amount of $1,615.  (Compl. p. 1 ¶ 3; Mot. p. 3.)  Following the judgment, Counsel for Pensco Trust Company fbo Caesar Berger, IRA 50%, and Pensco Trust Company fbo Inna Berger, IRA 50%, served Plaintiff Mink with a notice of lien against the judgment in the amount of $38,726.13.  (Compl. p. 2 ¶ 6; Mot. p. 3.)  Bobritsky’s former attorney Payman Taheri also served Plaintiff with a notice of lien against the judgment.  (Compl. p. 2 ¶ 8, Mot. p. 3.)

On July 15, 2021, Counsel for Defendants Pensco Trust Company fbo Caesar Berger, IRA 50%, and Pensco Trust Company fbo Inna Berger, IRA 50%, filed an Answer admitting all allegations in the Complaint.

On July 28, 2021, Plaintiff filed notice that the interpleader funds in the amount of $1,615.00 were deposited with the clerk of the Court.  (7-28-21 Notice of Deposit; Mink Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. 1.)

On August 6, 2021, Defendants signed an Agreement to Distribute Interpled Funds.  (Mink Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 2.)

On February 16, 2022, default was entered against Defendant Felix Bobritsky.  (2-16-22 Request for Entry of Default/Judgment.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Orders to Dismiss and Discharge Plaintiff from Liability and Distribute Interpled Funds and for Costs and Fees (the “Motion”) on April 13, 2022.

No opposition was filed.

II.              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.  (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.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386(a), 386.5.)  The motion must be supported by an affidavit by the stakeholder establishing the ground for interpleader.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 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…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.5.)  Notice of the motion must be served on each of the adverse claimants to the funds or property.  (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 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.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.1.)

III.            Discussion

A.    Motion to Dismiss and Discharge

The subject matter of this interpleader action is the judgment owed by Plaintiff to Defendant Bobritsky and the liens against this judgment by the other Defendants.

Here, Plaintiff has satisfied all requirements to be dismissed and discharged from liability.  First, Plaintiff has deposited the money to which conflicting claims exist with the clerk of the Court.  (7-28-21 Notice of Deposit; Mink Decl. ¶ 5; Ex. 1.)  In the Complaint, Plaintiff states that he “claims no interest in the $1,615.00” and is “ready, willing, and able to deliver these funds to the person who is legally entitled to receive them.”  (Comp. p. 2 ¶ 12.)

Second, Plaintiff has filed the instant Motion requesting that the Court issue an order discharging him from further liability and served the Notice of the Motion and Motion on all Defendants. 

Finally, default was entered against Defendant Bobritsky and all the Defendants signed an Agreement to Distribute Interpled Funds.  (2-16-22 Request for Entry of Default/Judgment; Mink Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 2.)

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s request to be dismissed and discharged from liability is GRANTED.

B.    Costs

The stakeholder may seek reimbursement for its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred.  (UAP-Columbus 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.  (Code Civ. Proc. § 386.6.)

            Plaintiff states that he incurred $288.90 in costs, $227.25 to file the action and $61.65 to file the Motion.  Plaintiff is awarded costs of $288.90, to be paid from the interpleader funds.

IV.           Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Lyle Mink’s Motion for Orders of Discharge and Dismissal of Plaintiff is GRANTED.  Plaintiff’s request for payment of costs in the amount of $288.90 is also GRANTED, to be paid from the interpleaded funds.