Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23STCV17567, Date: 2024-10-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV17567    Hearing Date: October 22, 2024    Dept: 68

Dept. 68

Date: 10-22-24

Case #23STCV17567

STAKEHOLDER DEPOSIT

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Integrated Lender Services

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendants, Sharon Munoz, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Stakeholder Deposit and Discharge of Stakeholder

SUMMARY OF ACTION

On July 26, 2023, Integrated Lender Services filed a complaint in interpleader against Sharon Munoz, Patricia Munoz, and Vivian Yamaguchi. Plaintiff alleges the complaint arises from a surplus balance of $344,954.56 following the August 3, 2022, non-judicial foreclosure sale of 732-734 Leonard Ave., Los Angeles. Plaintiff alleges the complaint in interpleader was necessary due to competing claims for the surplus funds amongst all three defendants.

Defendant Yamaguchi answered the complaint on September 26, 2023. Particia Munoz filed an answer and amended answer on October 23, 2023, and December 14, 2024. A default was entered against Sharon Munoz on October 10, 2023.

RULING: Granted.

Plaintiff, Integrated Lender Services moves for leave to deposit $342,597.63 with the court, and discharge from the action. Plaintiff filed a notice of non-opposition.

Code of Civil Procedure section 386 states in relevant part:

A defendant, against whom an action is pending upon a contract, or for specific personal property, may, at any time before answer, upon affidavit that a person not a party to the action makes against him, and without any collusion with him, a demand upon such contract, or for such property, upon notice to such person and the adverse party, apply to the court for an order to substitute such person in his place, and discharge him from liability to either party, on his depositing in court the amount claimed on the contract, or delivering the property or its value to such person as the court may direct; ¿and the court may, in its discretion, make the order; ¿or such defendant may file a verified cross-complaint in interpleader, admitting that he has no interest in such amount or such property claimed, or in a portion of such amount or such property and alleging that all or such portion of the amount or property is demanded by parties to such action or cross-action and apply to the court upon notice to such parties for an order to deliver such property or portion thereof or its value to such person as the court shall direct. And whenever conflicting claims are or may be made upon a person for or relating to personal property, or the performance of an obligation, or any portion thereof, such person may bring an action against the conflicting claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims. The order of substitution may be made and the action of interpleader may be maintained, and the applicant or interpleading party be discharged from liability to all or any of the conflicting claimants, although their titles or claims have not a common origin, or are not identical but are adverse to and independent of one another.

(Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (a).)

A party who holds property to which a person or various persons re assert claims, and where the party holds no interest other than as stakeholder, the defendant may bring a motion under Code of Civil Procedure section 386. (Cantu v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal. App. 4th 857, 875.) The moving party only need “file a disclaimer relinquishing any purported claim to the stake.” (Ibid.) “Once the [party] admits liability and deposits the money with the court, [the party] is discharged from liability and freed from the obligation of participating in the litigation between the claimants.” (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.)

The complaint and motion arise from a surplus balance of $344,954.56 following the August 3, 2022, non-judicial foreclosure sale of 732-734 Leonard Ave., Los Angeles.

The court finds no other basis of liability against Integrated Lender Services, and therefore grants the motion for deposit and discharge of all liability claims on the bond. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (b).) Dismissal effective upon deposit of the funds with the court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.5.)

Integrated Lender Services also moves for $17,621.92 in attorney fees and costs. “In ordering the discharge of such party, the court may, in its discretion, award such party his costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court. At the time of final judgment in the action the court may make such further provision for assumption of such costs and attorney fees by one or more of the adverse claimants as may appear proper.”  (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6, subd. (a); UAP-Columbus JV 326132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1036; Great West-Life Assur. Co. v. Superior Court (1969) 271 Cal.App.2d 124, 128.) The amount of attorney fees and costs must be restricted to those incurred as to the interpleader remedy. (Sweeney v. McClaran (1976) 58 Cal.App.3d 824, 830-831.)

The requested fees arise from prior efforts to execute a settlement agreement. The settlement agreement was not executed thereby leading to the subject motion and additional costs sought for the motion itself. [Declaration of Kassandra Goldberg.] The request also includes $2,356.93 in foreclosure fees and $11,118.42 in legal costs. [Declaration of Michael Reagan and Goldberg.]

The court grants the unchallenged fee and cost request.

Integrated Lender Services to give notice.