Judge Kerry Bensinger, Case Number: 24STCV16674, Date: 2025-01-23 Tentative Ruling

MOTION FOR INTERPLEADER, DISCHARGE AS STAKEHOLDER, INJUNCTION AGAINST FURTHER OR FUTURE ACTIONS, AND FOR AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Canary Asset Management, Inc. dba C&H Trust Deed Service

This is an interpleader action. Plaintiff Canary Asset Management, Inc. dba C&H Trust Deed Service (C&H) is a foreclosure processing firm which acted as trustee under a lien against a condominium unit at 230 East Ave. Q4, Unit 27, Palmdale, California (the Property). The Property was sold at a foreclosure sale on December 22, 2023. After payment of the foreclosing lien and costs of sale, there remained $113,194.52 of surplus funds.

At the time of the foreclosure sale, title to the Property was held in the name of Trevall Vega. It is believed Mr. Vega has since deceased. Shortly after the foreclosure sale, C&H was contacted by a law firm representing Lakeisha Jones, the mother of Trevall Vega, Jr. (Trevall, Jr.), a minor child. Trevall, Jr. asserted a right to the surplus funds as successor in interest to Mr. Vega.

C&H was later contacted by a second law firm, Consumer Defense Law Group, PC, claiming to represent Carrie Newton, the mother of Tre'yani Etta Denise Vega (Tre'yani) and Tre'sani Shantell Denise Vega (Tre'sani), both minor children. Tre'yani and Tre'sani asserted a right to the surplus funds as successors to Mr. Vega. At that same time, C&H was provided an Assignment of Rights executed by Ms. Newton purporting to assign all rights in said funds to Consumer Defense Law Group, PC.

Thereafter, C&H attempted to resolve the foregoing claims to the surplus funds but was unable to do so. This action followed.

On July 3, 2024, C&H commenced this action against defendants Trevall Deon Vega, Jr., Tre-Yani Etta Denise Vega, Tre’sani Shantell Denise Vega, and Consumer Defense Law Group, PC.

On November 21, 2024, C&H filed this motion to interplead the surplus funds (less an award of attorney’s fees), discharge C&H from this case and from all liability involving the rights and obligations of the defendants, issue an injunction against future or further actions, and award C&H attorney’s fees and costs in the sum of $6,455.82.

A person or entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386(b).) Interpleader does not require that the claims have a common origin; moreover, the claims need not be identical, but may be adverse to and independent of one another. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386(a), (b).)

“[I]nterpleader is an equitable proceeding in which the rights of the parties, as between themselves, are governed by principles of equity.’ [Citations.] ‘The purpose of interpleader is to prevent a multiplicity of suits and double vexation. [Citation.] “The right to the remedy by interpleader is founded, however, not on the consideration that a [person] may be subjected to double liability, but on the fact that he [or she] is threatened with double vexation in respect to one liability.” [Citation.]’ (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122 (Brown).) “In an interpleader action, the court initially determines the right of the plaintiff to interplead the funds; if that right is sustained, an interlocutory decree is entered which requires the defendants to interplead and litigate their claims to the funds.’ [Citation.] Then, in the second phase of an interpleader proceeding, the trial court also has ‘the power under section 386 to adjudicate the issues raised by the interpleader action including: the alleged existence of conflicting claims regarding the interpleaded funds; plaintiffs' alleged position as a disinterested mere stakeholder; and ultimately the disposition of the interpleaded funds after deducting plaintiffs' attorney fees.’ [Citation.]” (Hood v. Gonzales (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 71 (Hood), quoting Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1513–1514.) Interpleader is available if four requirements are met: (1) all claimants must have identical claims to the same thing, debt, or duty; (2) all adverse titles or claims must be dependent on or derived from a common source; (3) the person seeking the remedy must neither have an interest or claim in the subject matter; and (4) the person seeking the remedy must be an indifferent stakeholder and have no independent liability to any of the claimants. (Hood, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th at p. 72; see also Brown, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at p. 1122.)

Here, there is no dispute all four requirements are met. First, C&H foreclosed on the Property of decedent Trevall Vega pursuant to a lien. The foreclosure sale satisfied the lien and sale costs, resulting in a surplus of funds. Defendants all lay claim to this this surplus. Second, the defendants’ claims are derived from the same surplus. Third, C&H has no interest in the surplus funds, and relatedly, is an indifferent stakeholder with no independent liability.

Accordingly, at the first set step, the court finds that C&H has a right to interplead the surplus funds. As the motion is unopposed on this point, no arguments are presented directing a different result.

However, as to C&H’s request to be dismissed, the request is denied until the court can adjudicate the various parties’ positions. The court will set a status conference regarding mediation.

Plaintiff seeks an award in the sum of $6,455.82 in attorney’s fees and costs.

Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6 permits a party filing an interpleader and subsequently seeking discharge to seek reimbursement of its costs and attorney’s fees incurred out of the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court:

A party to an action who follows the procedure set forth in Section 386 or 386.5 may insert in his motion, petition, complaint, or cross complaint a request for allowance of his costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in such action. In 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.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6(a).) The fees must be limited to those incurred in pursuit of the stakeholder’s remedy. (See Sweeney v. McClaran (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 824, 830–31.)

The court has reviewed C&H’s request. Given there is no opposition, which in turn, obviated a need for reply, the court finds C&H substantiates an award’s request for $5,393.32 only. Plaintiff’s counsel expended 10.36 hours in litigating this matter and at plaintiff’s counsel’s hourly billing rate of $425.00, not including an additional 1.25 hours to attend the hearing for this motion. (See Halavais Decl., ¶ 13, Exh. D.) The court finds the time spent and the fees and costs incurred are reasonable.

Accordingly, Plaintiff Canary Asset Management, Inc. dba C&H Trust Deed Service’s unopposed motion is GRANTED in Part. The court finds that Plaintiff has a right to interplead th funds with the court. Plaintiff’s request to be dismissed from the action with prejudice is denied until Defendants’ competing claims to the surplus funds is adjudicated.

Plaintiff’s request for an award of fees and costs is GRANTED in part. Plaintiff is awarded $5,393.32 to be deducted from the surplus funds of $113,194.52. Plaintiff may deposit the remaining amount with the court.

Kerry Bensinger

Judge of the Superior Court