On September 19, 2022, Plaintiff Old Republic Surety Company (“Plaintiff” or “Old Republic”) filed a Complaint for Interpleader against Defendants Metropolitan Pool Builders dba BlueHaven Pools (“MPB”), Monica J. Dumont (“Dumont”), Paul Flowers (“Flowers”), Jared Negron (“Negron”), and Sean Hoagland (“Hoagland”) (collectively “Defendants”).

On November 16, 2022, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court dismissed Defendants Negron and Hoagland from the action. (11-15-22 Request for Dismissal.)

On December 5, 2022, Defendant Flowers, in propria persona, filed an Answer to the Complaint.

On June 20, 2023, pursuant to Plaintiff’s request, the Court entered default against Defendants MPB and Dumont. On July 13, 2023, pursuant to the parties’ stipulation, the Court set aside the default entered against Defendant MPB. (7-13-23 Stipulation and Order.) MPB filed an Answer on July 20, 2023.

On June 20, 2023, Plaintiff Old Republic filed the instant Motion to Deposit and Discharge Stakeholder and Request for Attorney’s Fees (“Motion”).

No opposition has been filed to Plaintiff’s Motion.

On August 28, 2023, the Court issued a minute order continuing the hearing on this matter to October 4, 2023. The Court found that Plaintiff has satisfied all requirements for the instant Motion. (Ibid.) However, because the Court also found that Plaintiff has not deposited the interpleader funds, the Court continued the hearing to allow Plaintiff time to deposit the interpleader funds with the Court. The Court declined to rule on Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs until the next scheduled hearing. (8-28-23 Minute Order.)

On September 21, 2023, Plaintiff filed a notice of deposit of bond funds in support of the instant motion.  (9-21-23 Notice of Deposit of Bond Funds; Ex. “1.”)

ANALYSIS 

I.                   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. (See Code of Civ. Proc. § 386; 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 subd. (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 subd. (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.)

Pursuant to § 386 subdivision (f), the court may also “enter 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.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. § 386 subd. (f).)

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

II.                Discussion

A.    Motion to Dismiss and Discharge

The subject matter of the instant Motion is a $15,000 Contractor’s State License Bond issued to Defendant MPB, as principal. (Sosa Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff Old Republic filed a Complaint in Interpleader naming the following claimants to the bond: 

(1)   Metropolitan Pool Builders dba Blue Haven Pools (Answered)

(2)   Monica J. Dumont (Defaulted)

(3)   Paul Flowers (Answered)

(4)   Jared Negron (Dismissed)

(5)   Sean Hoagland (Dismissed)

(Id. at ¶¶ 3-4; Compl.)

Plaintiff contends that “it does not know and cannot determine the respective merits of the claim from plaintiff and the defenses of METROPOLITAN POOL which are conflicting claims against the subject bond” and finds that the interpleader is a “safe, expedient, or economical remedy.” (Sosa Decl. ¶ 8.) Plaintiff states that it “has no interest in the proceeds of Bond No. W150387234 and is a mere stakeholder with respect thereto pursuant to CCP § 386.5.” (Ibid.) Old Republic requests permission from the Court to deposit the $15,000 bond with the Court, less attorney’s fees and costs, and be discharged from further liability to claimants in regard to this bond. (Mot. p. 2.) It also requests that the Court issue a restraining order against claimants and all other persons from instituting further legal action against Old Republic with respect to this bond, pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 386(f). (Id. at pp. 2-3.)

Plaintiff has served the moving papers on Defendants MPB, Dumont, and Flowers via U.S. mail. (Mot. pp. 8-9.) The Court finds that Plaintiff has satisfied all requirements for the instant Motion. Furthermore, the Court finds that Plaintiff has deposited the interpleader funds as order by the Court.  (8-28-23 Minute Order; 9-21-23 Notice of Deposit of Bond Funds; Ex. “1.”)

Thus, Plaintiff is entitled to be dismissed and discharged from liability. The Motion is GRANTED.

B.     Attorney’s Fees and Costs

The stakeholder may seek reimbursement for its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred. (Code Civ. Proc. § 386.6; 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 Old Republic requests $1,800 in attorney’s fees and costs related to the interpleader although the attorney’s fees and costs exceed $1,800. (Sosa Decl. ¶ 10.) The costs are as follows:

(1)   $370 filing fee;

(2)   $75 in service fees as to Defendant MPB;

(3)   $170 in service fees as to Defendant Monica J. Dumont;

(4)   $65 in service fee as to Defendant Paul Flowers;

(5)   $55 in service fee as to Defendant Jared Negron;

(6)   $65 in service fee as to Defendant Sean Hoagland; and

(7)   $60 filing fee for the instant Motion.

(Id. at ¶ 6.) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s counsel has attached an itemized statement containing details of additionally incurred attorney’s fees and states than an additional $450 in attorney’s fees is requested for filing the instant Motion. (Ibid.; Ex. “1.”) The Court finds Plaintiff’s request to be reasonable and that Plaintiff has deposited the funds with the Court. Thus, Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $1,800 is granted.

III.       Conclusion  

In all, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for an Order of Deposit, Restraining Order, Interpleader, and Attorney’s Fees in the amount of $1,800.

Moving Party is ordered to give notice.