ANALYSIS:

I.                Background

            Plaintiff provided a bond to Defendant AFDI Construction, Inc. in the amount of $15,000.  The bond was cancelled effective November 3, 2022.  Plaintiff alleges various claimants/defendants, including Defendant Lisa Barreras and Defendant Farris Tarazi, allege that AFDI has committed some act giving rise to liability on the bond.  AFDI denies liability.  On 12-7-21, Plaintiff filed this action for interpleader against AFDI, Barreras and Tarazi. 

            Default was entered against AFDI on 5-2-23.  Defendant Tarazi filed an answer on 2-24-23.  Defendant Barreras’s default was set aside by stip and order on 5-1-23.  Barreras filed an answer on 4-26-23.   

II.              Legal Standard

            Interpleader is proper whenever “double or multiple claims are made … by two or more persons … such that they may [expose the person against whom the claims are asserted] … to double or multiple liability …”  CCP § 386(b).  “The true test of suitability for interpleader is the stakeholder's disavowal of interest in the property sought to be interpleaded, coupled with the perceived ability of the court to resolve the entire controversy as to entitlement to the property without need for the stakeholder to be a party to the suit.”  (Pacific Loan Mgmt. Corp. v. Sup.Ct. (Armstrong) (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1489-1490.) 

            “The function of an interpleader action is to eliminate the risk of incorrectly resolving conflicting claims. When a disagreement arises as to the ownership of said property, the holder thereof has not obligated himself to settle said disagreement and deliver the property to either of said parties in the face of conflicting claims thereto.”  (Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 477, 489 (citing Pacific Loan Management Corp., supra and Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 876 (stakeholder not obligated to “resolve the apparent dispute without the consent of the competing claimants”).) 

            “Typical” situations permitting interpleader include “a bank escrow holder faced with conflicting claims of vendor, purchaser and purchaser's assignee; an escrow holder of a fund where one claimant notified the escrow holder that the contract was cancelled and nothing should be paid to the other claimant; and an insurance company admitting liability under a life insurance policy where conflicting claims to the proceeds existed.”  (Pacific Loan Mgmt., supra, 196 Cal.App.3d at 1490.) 

            “A complaint in interpleader must show that the defendants make conflicting claims to the subject matter, and that the plaintiff cannot safely determine which claim is valid and offers to deposit the money in court.  The right to the remedy of interpleader is founded on the consideration that a person is threatened not just with double liability, but with double vexation in respect to one liability.  An interpleader action, however, may not be maintained upon the mere pretext or suspicion of double vexation; the plaintiff must allege facts showing a reasonable probability of double vexation or a valid threat of double vexation.”  (Westamerica Bank v. City of Berkeley (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 598, 607–608.)

            “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; see also Dial 800 v. Fesbender (2004) 118 Cal.App.4^th 32, 43.)

            “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. At the time of final judgment in the action the court may make such further provision for assumption of such costs and attorney fees by one or more of the adverse claimants as may appear proper.”  (CCP §386.6(a).)

III.            Discussion

Western Surety moves for an order allowing it to deposit the fully penalty of Bond No. 65155751 in the amount of $15,000 issued on behalf of Defendant AFDI Construction.  Western Surety argues it is a mere stakeholder with no interest in the funds and should be discharged from all liability asserted against the funds.  Western Surety also asks that the Court award it reasonable attorney’s fees in the amount of $1200.

Western Surety provided a contractor’s bond to AFDI in the amount of $15,000 pursuant to Bus. & Prof. C. §7071.6.  Western Surety establishes that this action is the type for which interpleader is proper.  Western Surety has no interest in the $15,000 bond and multiple claimants have made claims against that amount, and the Court’s resolution of the competing claims asserted by Barreras, Tarazi and AFDI does not require Western Surety’s presence in the litigation. 

Western Surety is entitled to recovery of attorney’s fees and costs for interpleading the disputed funds pursuant to CCP §386.6.  Western Surety requests fees and costs in the amount of $1200.  The amount requested is reasonable and is less than the amount set forth in the itemized bills submitted by Wester Surety.  (Motion, Sosa Dec., ¶6, Ex. 1.) 

IV.            Conclusion & Order

Plaintiff Western Surety’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder; for Discharge of Stakeholder and Request for Attorney’s Fees pursuant to CCP §386.6 is GRANTED.  Plaintiff is awarded $1200 in reasonable fees and costs to be distributed from the disputed funds.  The Court notes no oppositions were filed.  INTERPLEADER FUNDS OF $13,800.00 ARE TO BE DEPOSITED WITH THE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS. TRIAL REMAINS SET FOR JUNE 5, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 25 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.