Judge Mark E. Windham, Case 22STLC03494 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 22STLC03494, Date: 2023-03-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STLC03494 Hearing Date: March 28, 2023 Dept: 26

Western Surety Co. v. Goosheh, et al.

MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEPOSIT INTERPLEADER FUNDS, FOR DISCHARGE OF STAKEHOLDER, RESTRAINING ORDER AND ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Western Surety Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, for Attorney’s Fees and for Temporary Restraining Order is GRANTED. INTERPLEADER FUNDS OF $13,000.00 ARE TO BE DEPOSITED WITH THE COURT WITHIN 30 DAYS. TRIAL REMAINS SET FOR NOVEMBER 21, 2023 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On May 24, 2022, Plaintiff Western Surety Company (“Plaintiff”) initiated this interpleader action against Defendants Mehrdad Martin Goosheh dba Mehrdad M. Goosheh (“Defendant Goosheh”); Mehdi Norouizi (“Defendant Norouizi”), David Aframian (“Defendant David”) and Fairy Aframian (“Defendant Fairy”). Following their failure to file responsive pleadings, default was entered against all Defendants on September 29, 2022. However, Plaintiff subequently stipulated to set aside the default against Defendants David and Fairy and deem the Answer filed by Defendant Fairy on October 7, 2022 to be a joint Answer as to both. (Order to Set Aside, 12/14/22.)

This action arises from a dispute over construction Bond No. 64814432 (the “Bond”) in the penal sum of $15,000.00. (Compl., ¶6.) Pursuant to the Application and Indemnity Agreement (“the Indemnity Agreement”), on September 27, 2019, Defendant Goosheh allegedly agreed to indemnify Plaintiff in exchange for issuance of the Bond. (Id. at ¶¶5-9.) After the Bond was issued, Defendants Norouizi, David and Fairy alleged that Defendant Goosheh committed some act that gave rise to liability under the Bond and now have made claims against the Bond. (Id. at ¶¶7-8, 13.) Defendant Goosheh refuses to hold Plaintiff harmless from the claims against the Bond, in breach of the Indemnity Agreement. (Id. at ¶9.)

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, for Attorney’s Fees and for Temporary Restraining Order on November 15, 2022. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Legal Standard

Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money or personal property to which conflicting claims are being made by others, or may be made, 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).)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s request for an order depositing the interpleader funds and to be discharged from liability on the Complaint in interpleader is proper. All claimants have been served with the Summons and Complaint and appeared in this action or are in default. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386 and 386.5.) Currently, Plaintiff cannot determine the validity of the conflicting demands that have been made. (Motion, Sosa Decl., ¶8 and Exh 2.) Upon deposit of the funds to the court, Plaintiff may be discharged from further liability. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, 386.5.) Furthermore, the fees and costs sought by Plaintiff are proper. Plaintiff’s counsel has expended substantial attorneys’ fees and costs bringing this action and protecting itself from liability. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant action and motion, served all Defendants, prepared the instant Motion, will appear at the instant hearing, will deposit the bond, and has sought to preserve the surplus funds. (Motion, Sosa Decl., ¶¶6, 10 and Exh. 1.) Fees and costs are awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $2,000.00. (Ibid.)

Finally, the Court notes that the parties filed a stipulation and order regarding disbursement of the remaining $13,000.00 to Defendants Daniel and Fairy on February 15, 2023. The proposed stipulation, however, contradicts the instant Motion in that it has Plaintiff disburse the funds directly to Defendants Daniel and Fairy, which would not be possible once the funds are deposited. (See Stip and Order, filed 02/15/23, p. 2:16-20.) The parties are invited to submit a corrected stipulation and order.

Conclusion

Moving party to give notice.