Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 23STLC04837, Date: 2024-05-30 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC04837    Hearing Date: May 30, 2024    Dept: 26

Ticor Title Co. of Cal. v. Willowbrook Restaurant, LLC, et al.

MOTION FOR DISCHARGE OF STAKEHOLDER AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, COSTS

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Ticor Title Company of California’s Motion for Discharge, and Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES OF $6,119.00 AND COSTS OF $769.33.

TRIAL / HEARING ON DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS OR FOR ORDER ESCHEATING THE FUNDS ACCORDING TO LAW IS SET FOR JANUARY 28, 2025 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

ANALYSIS:

On August 1, 2023, Plaintiff Ticor Title Company of California (“Plaintiff”) initiated this interpleader action against Defendants Willowbrook Restaurant, LLC and Xen Restaurant, LLC (“Defendants”). Following their failure to file responsive pleadings, default was entered against both Defendants on February 26, 2024.

Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, and Award of Costs and Escrow Compensation on March 22, 2024. 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 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).)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s request for an order to be discharged from liability on the Complaint in interpleader is proper. The disputed funds of $15,982.86 were deposited with the Court when the action was filed. All claimants have been served with the Summons and Complaint and 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, Tyler Decl., ¶¶3-7.) Furthermore, the fees and costs sought by Plaintiff are proper except for those regarding an anticipated reply, as the Motion is unopposed. Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant action, deposited the funds, served and defaulted Defendants, prepared the instant Motion, and will appear at the instant hearing. (Id. at Exh. 1.) Therefore, attorney’s fees are awarded to Plaintiff in the amount of $6,119.00. (Ibid.) Costs are awarded in the amount of $769.33 based on a reduction of $19.72 for legal research, which the Court will not award. (Ibid.)

Conclusion

Plaintiff Ticor Title Company of California’s Motion for Discharge, and Award of Attorney’s Fees and Costs is GRANTED. PLAINTIFF IS AWARDED ATTORNEY’S FEES OF $6,119.00 AND COSTS OF $769.33.

TRIAL / HEARING ON DISBURSEMENT OF FUNDS OR FOR ORDER ESCHEATING THE FUNDS ACCORDING TO LAW IS SET FOR JANUARY 28, 2025 AT 8:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party to give notice.