Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 21STLC01424, Date: 2023-05-11 Tentative Ruling

If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 26 at the Spring Street Courthouse until the morning of the motion hearing.

The e-mail address is SSCdept26@lacourt.org

The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.

If there are no appearances by either side and no submission on the Court's tentative ruling, the matter will be placed OFF CALENDAR.

Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time.

Troshchiy v. Gentle, et al.

MOTION TO PERMIT INTERPLEADER OF FUNDS, DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY,

Plaintiff Olga N. Troshchiy’s Motion to Permit Interpleader of Funds, Discharge of Liability, and Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is DENIED.

Plaintiff Olga N. Troshchiy (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action for interpleader against Defendants Ian Gentle, Imekhi Gentle, a minor by and through his guardian ad litem Ian Gentle (“the Gentle Defendants”), and Dr. Kevin E. Martin (“Defendant Martin”) on February 18, 2021. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff represented the Gentle defendants in a personal injury action that ultimately settled in the total amount of $19,500.00. (Compl., ¶¶6-8.) However, an alleged dispute over the distribution of the settlement funds has arisen between the Gentle Defendants and Defendant Martin that Plaintiff is unable to resolve. (Id. at ¶¶11-17.) Plaintiff brings the instant action to interplead the settlement funds and allow Defendants to resolve the dispute between themselves. (Id. at p. 4:1-10.)

Defendant Martin filed an Answer on March 25, 2021 and the Gentle Defendants answered on July 16, 2021. The parties stipulated to continue the trial date from September 28, 2022 to February 15, 2023. (Stip and Order, 09/22/22.) Trial was then continued again multiple times and is currently scheduled for January 25, 2024.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Permit Interpleader of Funds, Discharge of Liability, and Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs on October 19, 2023. Defendant Martin filed an opposition on December 19, 2023. On December 22, 2023, the Gentle Defendants filed a “limited opposition” to the Motion, in which Plaintiff joined. Defendant Martin filed a response to the “limited opposition” on December 28, 2023, to which the Gentle Defendants objected on December 29, 2023 as a second opposition. Defendant Martin then filed a reply to the objection on January 2, 2024.

Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or personal property to which conflicting claims are being or may be made by others can join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate their claims among themselves. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (b).) Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497, 508 (i.e., an escrow-holder who receives conflicting demands from the parties to the escrow regarding the funds or documents he or she holds); City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.)

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 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.)

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. (Ibid.) Ultimately, such payment may be charged to one or more of the adverse claimants in the final judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6.) Finally, the Court may issue an “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (f).)

Plaintiff’s request for an order depositing the interpleader funds and to be discharged from liability to Defendants in this action does not make clear the amount to be deposited with the Court. (See Motion, generally.) Nor does the Complaint indicate the amount of funds in dispute. Finally, no funds have been deposited with the Court, despite Plaintiff’s repeated contentions that the funds have been deposited. (Motion, p. 4:8-12.)

The Complaint alleges that the Gentle Defendants settled their underlying action for a total of $19,500.00 ($15,000.00 to Defendant Ian Gentle and $4,500.00 to Defendant Imekhi Gentle). (Compl., ¶8.) It is further alleged that Defendant Martin demands $5,378.00 for Defendant Ian Gentle and $2,500.00 for Defendant Imekhi Gentle. (Id. at ¶12.) Defendant Martin, however, alleges a lien of $10,369.00. (Answer, filed 03/25/21, ¶3.) Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees and costs of $10,039.33. (Motion, p. 6:8-9.) In light of the foregoing lack of clarity regarding the amount in dispute and the demands of Defendants, and the lack of any funds deposited with the Court, the Motion for Deposit, Discharge of Liability, and Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is denied.

Plaintiff Olga N. Troshchiy’s Motion to Permit Interpleader of Funds, Discharge of Liability, and Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is DENIED.

TRIAL REMAINS SET FOR JANUARY 25, 2024 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.