Judge: Melvin D. Sandvig, Case: 22CHCV01398, Date: 2023-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV01398    Hearing Date: October 3, 2023    Dept: F47

Dept. F47

Date: 10/3/23

Case #22CHCV01398

 

MOTION TO DEPOSIT BY STAKEHOLDER

 

Motion filed on 6/8/23.

 

MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual)

RESPONDING PARTY: All other parties

NOTICE: ok

 

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order of deposit, restraining order, interpleader and attorney’s fees.  Specifically, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual) seeks an order that:

 

(1)  MERCHANTS Bonding deposit with the Court the full penalty of Bond No. CA5853919 in the sum of $15,000 issued on behalf of cross-defendant, SUPERIOR ROOF SOLUTIONS INC., a California corporation (hereinafter referred to as “SUPERIOR ROOF”) in accordance with the terms and provisions of Section 7071.6 of the Business and Professions Code less those sums that the Court may award MERCHANTS BONDING in reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

 

(2)  Upon the deposit of said funds, MERCHANTS BONDING be discharged from all liability asserted against it with respect to said bond by the claimants designated herein and by all other persons.

 

(3)  Upon deposit of said funds, all claimants designated herein, and all persons be ordered to interplead their claims in this action; and be further restrained from instituting or prosecuting in any other court, any proceedings affecting the rights and obligations of MERCHANTS BONDING with respect to all claimants under Bond No. CA5853919 issued on behalf of SUPERIOR ROOF.

 

(4)  Any legal actions pending against the proceeds of said bond on behalf of any claimant referenced herein to be dismissed as to MERCHANTS BONDING.

 

(5)  MERCHANTS BONDING be awarded its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the sum of $1,500 as allowance for its expenses incurred in this proceeding by the filing of its Cross-Complaint in Interpleader and in preserving the penalty of said bond for all claimants on an equal basis.

 

RULING: The unopposed motion is granted. 

 

SUMMARY OF ACTION & PROCEDURAL HISTORY

 

Plaintiff J.B. Wholesale Roofing and Building Supplies, Inc. (Plaintiff), a wholly owned subsidiary of SRS Distribution Inc., a Delaware corporation, is in the business of selling, among other things, roofing material, equipment, supplies and related goods for use in construction and other applications (Materials).  This action arises from the furnishing of Materials to Defendant Superior Roof Solutions Inc., a California corporation (Superior Roof) for use in its business.

 

On or about 3/18/21, Plaintiff and Superior Roof executed a written credit application and agreement (Credit Agreement) for the supply of Materials.  On the same date, Defendant David Sager (Sager), the owner of Superior Roof, agreed in writing to personally guarantee payment of all past, present, and future indebtedness of Superior Roof to Plaintiff (the Guaranty) (Superior Roof and Sager may be collectively referred to as Defendants).

 

Based on the Credit Agreement and Guaranty, Plaintiff opened a credit account for

Superior Roof, pursuant to which Plaintiff supplied Materials on credit for, among other things, use in Superior Roof’s business.  The terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement and Guaranty made in consideration of Plaintiff opening a credit account for Superior Roof are applicable to the account opened under the Credit Agreement.  Said terms and conditions are also contained in the written invoices used to confirm the purchases by Superior Roof from Plaintiff.  The terms and conditions of the Credit Agreement, the Guaranty, and the confirming invoices form the written contract by which Plaintiff supplied Materials to Superior Roof (the Contract).

 

The Contract provided, in relevant part, that Plaintiff would sell Materials to Superior Roof, and that Superior Roof would pay Plaintiff for said Materials by the 25th day of the month from the date of invoice. Pursuant to the Contract, Plaintiff provided Materials to Superior Roof at the request of Superior Roof.  Each shipment of Materials to Superior Roof was confirmed by an invoice sent to Superior Roof.

 

On 12/15/22, Plaintiff filed this action against Defendants to collect the amounts owed for the Materials provided.  Plaintiff’s complaint also seeks enforcement of Plaintiff’s claim against the license bond of Superior Roof.  The license bond surety, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual), an Iowa corporation (Merchants), filed an interpleader cross-complaint, which Plaintiff has answered. 

 

After having been served with the summons and complaint, Superior Roof and Sager failed to file responsive pleadings.  As a result, default was entered against these Defendants on 2/9/23.

 

On 5/8/23, Plaintiff filed and served a motion which sought an order severing Superior Roof and Sager from this action and entering judgment by default against Superior Roof on the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th causes of action in Plaintiff’s complaint, and against Sager on the 5th cause of action in Plaintiff’s complaint in the amount of $32,533.46 which includes interest, attorneys’ fees and costs, as recoverable under the Contract and applicable law.  On 5/8/23, Plaintiff also dismissed Does 1-20.  Upon the granting of the motion to sever, Plaintiff indicated that it would proceed to prosecute the remaining license bond claim against Merchants and Does 21-30, inclusive. 

 

On 6/8/23, Merchants filed and served the instant motion seeking an order of deposit, restraining order, interpleader and attorney’s fees.  Specifically, Merchants seeks an order that:

 

(1)   Merchants deposit with the Court the full penalty of Bond No. CA5853919 in the sum of $15,000 issued on behalf of cross-defendant, Superior Roof in accordance with the terms and provisions of Business & Professions Code 7071.6 less those sums that the Court may award Merchants in reasonable attorney's fees and costs.

 

(2)  Upon the deposit of said funds, Merchants be discharged from all liability asserted against it with respect to said bond by the claimants designated herein and by all other persons.

 

(3)  Upon deposit of said funds, all claimants designated herein, and all persons be ordered to interplead their claims in this action; and be further restrained from instituting or prosecuting in any other court, any proceedings affecting the rights and obligations of Merchants with respect to all claimants under Bond No. CA5853919 issued on behalf of Superior Roof.

 

(4)  Any legal actions pending against the proceeds of said bond on behalf of any claimant referenced herein to be dismissed as to Merchants.

 

(5)  Merchants be awarded its reasonable attorney's fees and court costs in the sum of $1,500 as allowance for its expenses incurred in this proceeding by the filing of its Cross-Complaint in Interpleader and in preserving the penalty of said bond for all claimants on an equal basis.

 

On 8/16/23, the Court granted Plaintiff’s unopposed motion to sever.    

 

No opposition or other response to the instant motion has been filed.

 

ANALYSIS

 

The Contractor’s License Bond which is the subject of this motion provides that the total liability of the Surety herein shall not exceed the sum of $15,000 for non-homeowner claimants pursuant to Business and Professions Code Section 7071.6(b).

 

An action in interpleader has traditionally been the appropriate method of resolution in instances, such as this, where multiple claims exceed the sum statutorily available to the various claimants.  See CCP  386(b); (Sosa Decl.).

 

Where a party is a mere stakeholder, like Merchants, without any interests in the proceeds of the res, that party may be discharged from liability pursuant to CCP 386.5.  (See Sosa Decl.).  Upon deposit of the stake with the Court, the interpleading party, should receive a restraining order to prevent needless future costs and harassment.  See CCP 386(f).

 

Additionally, a surety on a statutory bond, such as Merchants, is entitled to its reasonable attorney's fees incurred to implement the remedy of interpleader, to preserve the bond penalty and to join all claimants in the same forum.  See CCP 386.6.  Here, Merchants is entitled to a statutory allowance in the sum of $1,500 to pay expenses incurred solely in pursuit of the stakeholder’s remedy.  CCP 386, et seq.

 

CONCLUSION

 

The motion is granted.