Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 24STCV16381, Date: 2024-10-03 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 24STCV16381 Hearing Date: October 3, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing
date: 10/03/2024
Moving
Party: Plaintiff Universal Bank
Responding
Party: None
Motion
for Order for Discharge and Payment of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs
The Court has considered
the moving papers. No opposition was received.
The
motion is DENIED without prejudice.
Background
This
is an interpleader action. On May 17, 2024, Idabel Guzman Domantay was credited
$293,364.27 for the sale of her home. (Liu Decl., ¶ 4.) Thereafter, Domantay
issued several cashier’s checks to Porteous, Griffith, and Lewis, having been
informed that she needed to make such payments related to taxes for a lottery
deposit she was about to receive. (Liu Decl., ¶ 5; Complaint ¶¶ 3-5.) Plaintiff
Universal Bank (Plaintiff) suspected financial elder abuse against Domantay and
refused to authorize or allow Domantay to pay any amount to any defendants in
this case. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) Defendants Monique Maniquez Busby and Lydia Rigor
are Domantay’s relatives, currently in the process of using legal means to
control Domantay’s bank account for her benefit. (Complaint, ¶ 9.) In total,
Plaintiff is holding $198,151.51 in Domantay’s bank account as of June 25, 2024,
of which Plaintiff has deposited $188.151.51 with the Clerk of the Court, as
authorized by Code of Civil Procedure section 386(c). (Complaint, ¶¶ 10, 13.)
Plaintiff has no interest in the funds, except for attorneys’ fees and expenses
incurred in this action. (Complaint, ¶ 13.)
Plaintiff
filed its initial complaint on July 1, 2024.
Plaintiff
filed the instant motion on September 6, 2024. No defendant has filed an
opposition.
Legal
Standard
Interpleader
An interpleader
action is initiated when a party, who has no interest in the disputed funds or
property but is subject to conflicting claims, deposits those funds or property
with the court and seeks to compel the claimants to litigate their claims among
themselves. (Tri-State, Inc. v. Long Beach Cmty. Coll. Dist. (2012) 204
Cal.App.4th 224, 227 (Tri-State).) This is done to prevent multiple
lawsuits and double vexation. (Principal Life Ins. Co. v. Peterson
(2007) 156 Cal.App.4th 676.)
The interpleader
process involves two steps. First, the court determines whether the plaintiff
has the right to interplead the funds or property. (City of Morgan Hill v.
Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114 (Morgan Hill).) If the right is
established, an interlocutory decree is entered which requires the defendants
to interplead and litigate their claims to the funds or property.
In the second
step, once the interpleader plaintiff admits liability and deposits the funds
or property with the court, the plaintiff may be discharged from liability and
dismissed from the interpleader action. (Morgan Hill, supra, 71
Cal.App.4th 1114 at p. 1127.) This discharge serves to preserve the fund,
discharge the stakeholder from further liability, and keep the fund or property
in the court's custody until the rights of potential claimants can be
adjudicated.
For the
plaintiff to be discharged from an interpleader action, it is necessary that
the disputed funds or property be placed into the court's custody. (Virtanen
v. O'Connell (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 688.) This is to ensure that the court
can properly adjudicate the rights of the claimants to the disputed funds or
property. (Tri-State, supra, 204 Cal.App.4th at p. 227.)
Code of Civil
Procedure section 386.5 states that a defendant in an interpleader action may,
upon affidavit that it has no interest in the property or money claimed and conflicting
demands have been made for the amount by parties to the action, provide notice
to such parties and apply to the court for an order discharging it from
liability. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.5) An interpleader plaintiff must follow all
requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 386 and 386.5. (Hood v.
Gonzales (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 81-82.)
Discussion
Discharge from Interpleader Action
Plaintiff has
met the statutory requirements to be released from the current interpleader
action. Plaintiff has a right to interplead pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure
section 386. Plaintiff has established that it has no interest in the funds.
(Complaint, ¶ 13.) Plaintiff has also deposited the disputed funds under Code
of Civil Procedure section 386(c). (Complaint, ¶ 13.) Plaintiff has named all
defendants in this action in its complaint and served Domantay, Busby, Rigor,
and Adult Protective Services. (Mot. for Discharge, Proof of Service.) However,
Plaintiff has not served Porteous, Griffith, or Lewis. Plaintiff alleges that
it does not have sufficient information to have them served. (Mot. for
Discharge, p. 4.) However, Plaintiff has not provided the Court with the amount
of information that it has, or filed proof of attempted service on Porteous,
Griffith, or Lewis.
Accordingly,
the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for discharge from liability without
prejudice.
Attorney’s
Fees and Costs
Pursuant
to Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6, a party involved in an interpleader
action may include in their motion, petition, complaint, or cross-complaint a
request for their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred in the action.
(Code of Civ. Proc., § 386.6) The court, according to its discretion, can award
the party their costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees from the disputed amount
deposited with the court. (Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. v. Rees
(2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 307, 315 (Farmers); Sweeney v. McClaran
(1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 824.) This provision does not indicate any exemptions for
specific types of parties, which suggests that it does not intend for the trial
court to exercise its discretion to award attorneys’ fees and costs only to a
certain type of party. (Farmers, supra, 219 Cal.App.4th at p. 315.)
Plaintiff
requests that the court award $10,385 in attorneys’ fees and costs. (Liu Decl.,
¶ 9.) Plaintiff has not provided an itemization of the fees and costs.
In order for the
Court to determine reasonableness of attorneys’ fees and costs, Plaintiff must
provide a breakdown of the fees and costs. Additionally, Plaintiff has not been
discharged from this action.
Accordingly, the
Court DENIES Plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and costs without prejudice.
It
is so ordered.
Dated:
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court