Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 21STCV34639, Date: 2022-12-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV34639 Hearing Date: December 8, 2022 Dept: 53
Superior Court of California
County of Los Angeles – Central District
Department
53
|
vs. |
Case
No.: |
21STCV34639 |
|
|
|
|
|
Hearing
Date: |
December
8, 2022 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Time: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[Tentative]
Order RE: MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEPOSIT BOND FUNDS with
court |
||
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff in Intervention
SureTec Insurance Company
RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed
Motion for Order to Deposit Bond Funds With
Court
The court considered the moving papers filed in connection with this
motion. No opposition or reply papers
were filed.
MOTION FOR ORDER TO DEPOSIT BOND FUNDS
Plaintiffs 909 Development Group, L.P., and Neufeld Marks, APC filed
their Complaint in Interpleader in this action on September 20, 2021, against
defendants Bullseye Capital Real Property Opportunity Fund I, LLC; Joel Block;
Growth-Logic, Inc., dba Bullseye Capital; Thomas Pierce; and Randall McCathren.
On September 22, 2021, plaintiff Neufeld Marks, APC, filed its
undertaking for interpleader pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 386 in
the amount of $325,640.43.
On January 31, 2022, SureTec Insurance Company (“SureTec”) filed a
Complaint-in-Intervention for Interpleader in this action.
SureTec now moves the court for an order (1) allowing SureTec to
deposit the penal sum of the bond ($325,640.43 less costs and attorney’s fees)
with the court; (2) exonerating SureTec from all further liability and
discharging SureTec from any liability arising from Interpleader Bond No.
3491059 (the “Bond”); (3) retaining and prohibiting prosecution of any further
legal action against the Bond; (4) dismissing SureTec from this action; and (5)
granting SureTec’s request for reasonable attorney’s fees and costs in the
amount of $6,703.50.
“Where the only relief sought against one of the defendants is the
payment of a stated amount of money alleged to be wrongfully withheld, such
defendant may, upon affidavit that he is a mere stakeholder with no
interest in the amount or any portion thereof and that conflicting demands have
been made upon him for the amount by parties to the action, upon notice to such
parties, apply to the court for an order discharging him from liability and
dismissing him from the action on his depositing with the clerk of the court
the amount in dispute and the court may, in its discretion, make such order.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.5.)
The court grants SureTec’s motion for order to deposit bond
funds with court.
First, SureTec submits the declaration of its counsel, who states that
defendants Bullseye Capital Real Property Opportunity Fund I, LLC (“Bullseye”),
Joel Block, Growth-Logic, Inc., dba Bullseye Capital, Thomas Pierce, and Randal
McCathren have made competing claims against the Bond. (Martinez-Genzon Decl., ¶ 3.) Second, SureTec submits the declaration of its
Vice-President, Court/Probate Bond Attorney, who states that (1) on September
22, 2021, plaintiff Neufeld Marks, APC executed an application for a civil
court bond and indemnification agreement for an interpleader bond from SureTec,
and that SureTec thereafter issued the Bond in the amount of $325,640.43; (2)
on January 6, 2022, Bullseye issued a notice of levy, memorandum of garnishee
and writ of execution in the amount of $329,389.03, such that (3) SureTec has
received competing claims against the Bond that exceed its limit of $325,640.43,
since SureTec is obligated to all other named defendants, and not solely
Bullseye; and (4) SureTec has no interest in the aforementioned funds except as
to any court-awarded attorney’s fees and costs.
(Ortiz Decl., ¶¶ 3, 5-6, 9.) No
opposition has been filed by any party disputing the facts set forth above.
SureTec has therefore established that (1) it is a mere stakeholder
with no interest in the amount of the funds, and (2) conflicting demands have
been made upon it for the amount of the Bond by parties to this action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.5.)
The court therefore grants SureTec’s request to discharge it from
liability and dismiss it from this action on its depositing with the clerk of
court the amount in dispute, less the amount of attorney’s fees and costs. (Code Civ. Proc., § 385.6.)
The court grants SureTec’s request that the court order that all
parties to this action are restrained 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).)
The court finds that SureTec’s request for attorney’s fees and costs
in the total amount of $6,703.50 (consisting of $6,121.60 in attorney’s fees + $581.90
in costs) is reasonable, and therefore grants SureTec’s request for an award of
attorney’s fees and costs. (Code Civ.
Proc., § 386.6, subd. (a); Martinez-Genzon Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.)
The court grants plaintiff-in-intervention SureTec Insurance Company’s
motion for order to deposit bond funds with court.
The court will sign and file the proposed order lodged by plaintiff-in-intervention
SureTec Insurance Company on April 27, 2022.
The court orders plaintiff-in-intervention SureTec Insurance Company
to give notice of this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED:
_____________________________
Robert
B. Broadbelt III
Judge
of the Superior Court