Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 22STLC07202, Date: 2024-04-30 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.

Qualitas Ins. Co. v. Conde, et al.

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

Plaintiff Qualitas Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder is CONTINUED TO JUNE 25, 2024 AT 10:00 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. BY MAY 28, 2024, PLAINTIFF IS TO FILE AND SERVE A SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION REGARDING THE ATTORNEY’S FEES AND COSTS SOUGHT.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deposit Funds on February 8, 2024. To date, no opposition to the Motion has been filed.

The Complaint alleges that this action arises from a dispute over a settlement in a personal injury action. (Compl., ¶¶2-6.) Defendant Lester represented Defendant Conde in the underlying action and asserts a $4,000.00 attorney’s fees lien on the $10,000.00 settlement. (Ibid.) Plaintiff, Defendant Conde’s insurer concerning the motor vehicle accident that gave rise to the personal injury settlement, allegedly cannot resolve the dispute over the insurance money. (Id. at ¶12.) Plaintiff alleges no interest in the insurance money and upon its deposit seeks to be discharged from liability in this action. (Id. at ¶¶13-16.) Plaintiff also requests an order that it can recover its reasonable costs and attorney’s fees. (Id. at ¶15.)

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).)

Plaintiff’s request for an order depositing the interpleader funds and to be discharged from liability on the Complaint in interpleader is proper. Both Defendants have been served and have either answered or are in default. Substantively, Plaintiff cannot determine the validity of the conflicting demands that have been made and has no interest in the funds. (Motion, Heath Decl., ¶3; Hartman Decl., ¶4.) Upon deposit of the funds to the court, Plaintiff may be discharged from further liability. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, 386.5.) Furthermore, Plaintiff is entitled to move to recover the fees and costs expended bringing this interpleader action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6, subd. (a).) However, in the interest of efficiency, Plaintiff is to file a supplemental declaration regarding its attorney’s fees and costs, instead of a separate motion.

Plaintiff’s request for an offset of the $10,000.00 from any judgment awarded to Defendants is denied.