Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 22STCV23948, Date: 2025-02-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV23948    Hearing Date: February 18, 2025    Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE:     February 18, 2025                 TRIAL DATE: None Set

CASE:                         Raymond Ghermezian v. Antonio Cunningham, et al.

CASE NO.:                 22STCV23948

MOTION TO FILE INTERPLEADER OF FUNDS, DISCHARGE OF LIABILITY, AND RECOVERY OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY:               Plaintiff Raymond Ghermezian, a Professional Law Corporation

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No opposition on file.

CASE HISTORY:

• 07/25/22: Complaint filed.
• 06/30/23: Amendment to Complaint filed identifying U.S. Anesthesia Partners as Doe 1.
• 07/05/23: Defendants Rockpoint Legal Funding and Clark County Office of the District Attorney dismissed without prejudice pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Plaintiff.
• 08/28/23: Defendant Institute of Mayfair Emergency Physicians dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Plaintiff.  
• 10/26/23: Defendant U.S. Anesthesia Partners dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Plaintiff.
• 12/04/23: Amendment to Complaint filed identifying U.S. Anesthesia Partners as Doe 2.  
• 12/19/23: Default entered against Defendant Anesthesia Consultants, Inc.
• 12/20/23: Defendant Institute of Orthopaedic Surgery dismissed from this action without prejudice pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Plaintiff.
• 12/27/23: Default entered against Defendant Enos Chiropractic Clinic and Defendant Action Spine & Joint.
• 03/12/24: Defendant U.S. Anesthesia Partners (Doe 2) was dismissed from this action pursuant to a request for dismissal filed by Plaintiff.
• 04/25/24: Default entered against Defendant Lakewood Regional Medical Center.
• 12/24/24: Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to File Interpleader of Funds, Discharge of Liability, and Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

//

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

            Plaintiff Raymond Ghermezian, a Professional Law Corporation (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint arising from $25,000 that is being held in trust by Plaintiff. (Compl., ¶ 1.) The complaint alleges the following: on or about September of 2019, the case of Antonio Cunningham v. Bellflower Somerset Mutual Water Company, et al., LASC Case No. BC662520 settled. (Compl., ¶ 13.) The sum of $12,000 in settlement funds remains in Plaintiff’s trust account after fees were deducted. (Compl., ¶ 13.) The defendants in this lawsuit lay claim to such funds. (Compl., ¶ 14.) Plaintiff is indifferent with respect to which defendant should receive funds from its trust account. (Compl., ¶ 14.) The respective claims made by Defendants are adverse and conflicting and are made without Plaintiff’s collusion. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Plaintiff is unable to safely determine which of the claims is valid. (Compl., ¶ 15.) Plaintiff has the sum of $12,000 remaining in trust after fees and costs which is the entire amount in dispute and seeks to deposit it with the clerk of the court on the filing of the complaint. (Compl., ¶ 16.) Plaintiff alleges that it has incurred attorney fees and costs because of these proceedings. (Compl., ¶ 17.)   

            The complaint in interpleader is asserted against Defendants Antonio Cunningham, Enos Chiropractic Clinic, Lakewood Regional Medical Center, Action Spine & Joint, Institute of Orthopaedic Surgery, Institute of Mayfair Emergency Physicians, Anesthesiology Consultants, Inc., Rockpoint Legal Funding, Clark County Office of the District Attorney, and Does 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively, “Defendants”).

            On December 24, 2024, Plaintiff filed and served the instant Motion to File Interpleader of Funds, Discharge of Liability, and Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.

            As of February 11, 2025, the instant motion is unopposed. Any opposition was required to be filed and served at least nine court days before the hearing. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Raymond Ghermezian, a Professional Law Corporation’s Motion to File Interpleader of Funds, Discharge of Liability, and Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

DISCUSSION:

Plaintiff’s Motion to File Interpleader of Funds, Discharge of Liability, and Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs

            Legal Standard

            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 Community College 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, 682.)

            The interpleader process involves a two-step procedure. (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1126 (Morgan Hill).) The court first determines whether the plaintiff has the right to interplead the funds or property. (Id. at p. 1126-27.) “[I]f that right is sustained, an interlocutory decree is entered with requires the defendants to interplead and litigate their claims to the funds.” (Virtanen v. O’Connell (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 688, 698.) “Second, it if it is so determined, then the court will discharge the plaintiff from liability and the action may proceed for the determination of the rights of the various claimants to the property which is then in the custody of the court.” (Morgan Hill, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th 1114 at p. 1127.) “The effect of such an order is to preserve the fund, discharge the stakeholder from further liability, and to keep the fund in the court’s custody until the rights of the potential claimants of the monies can be adjudicated.” (Virtanen v. O’Connell, supra, 140 Cal.App.4th 688 at p. 698.)         

            “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 upon 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.) An interpleader plaintiff must follow all requirements of Code of Civil Procedure sections 386 and 386.5 “including disavowing any interest in the amount or property being interpleaded; depositing that amount with, or delivering said property to, the court; and seeking and obtaining a discharge from liability.” (Hood v. Gonzales (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 81-82 (Hood).)

            “A party to an action who follows the procedure set forth in Section 386 or 386.5 may insert in his motion, petition, complaint, or cross complaint a request for allowance of his costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in such action. In ordering the discharge of such party, the court may, in its discretion, award such party his costs and reasonable attorney fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court. At the time of the 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.)

A.    Declaration of Counsel in Support of the Motion

            Raymond Ghermezian (“Ghermezian”) provides a declaration in support of the motion. Mr. Ghermezian states the following: $12,000 is the disputed amount in this interpleader. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 4.) Over the period of almost three years, his office tried to negotiate with the named defendants but was unsuccessful. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 5.) Due to the competing demands made upon Plaintiff, Plaintiff had no choice but to file the interpleader action on July 25, 2022. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 6.) The complaint has been served on all named defendants. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 7.) All named defendants have defaulted, have been dismissed, or have filed an answer to the interpleader complaint. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 8.)

            Plaintiff seeks default judgment against Defendant Enos Chiropractic Clinic, Action Spine & Joint, Lakewood Regional Medical Center, and Antonio Cunningham. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff has no personal obligation to the other parties, has no interest in the funds interpleaded, and is a mere stakeholder in the funds in controversy. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 10.) Plaintiff is not entitled to any of the remaining funds, other than for the costs and attorney fees in bringing this action. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 10.) Counsel requests that Plaintiff be discharged from liability in this matter as it has deposited all the funds at issue in Plaintiff’s IOLTA attorney client trust account. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 18.)

            Counsel’s hourly rate is $400 per hour and such rates are standard billing rates for a law firm that has been continually in the practice of plaintiff personal injury since 2000. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 17.) Pursuant to CCP § 386.6, Plaintiff has expended 8.5 hours. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 13.) Plaintiff has incurred costs of $1,206.41 and has incurred $6,400 in attorneys’ fees for the interpleader action. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶¶ 11, 14; Exh. 1.) In total, Plaintiff requests $7,606.41 in attorney fees and costs for the interpleader in this action. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 15.)

B.     Plaintiff Has Not Completely Followed the Interpleader Process

            Plaintiff has established the right to interplead pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 386. (See CCP § 386(b) [“Any person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.”].) Plaintiff has established no interest in the funds. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 10.)

The Court notes that Plaintiff has not yet deposited the funds at issue with the Court even though the complaint alleges such fact. (Compl., ¶ 16.) Mr. Ghermezian indicates that the funds at issue remain in Plaintiff’s IOLTA attorney client trust account. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 18.) Under Hood, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th 57, Plaintiff has not followed all the requirements of the interpleader process. Plaintiff has not deposited the amount with or delivered the funds at issue to the clerk of the Court. (See Hood, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 82 [finding that plaintiff met interpleader requirements where the disputed funds were removed from the client trust account and deposited with the court clerk upon the filing of the interpleader action.].)

            As to the issue of attorneys’ fees, the Court notes that there is a discrepancy in the amount of attorneys’ fees sought. Mr. Ghermezian declares that 8.5 hours of attorney time were spent on this action. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 13.) At an hourly rate of $400 per hour, such an amount equals $3,400.00 in attorneys’ fees and not the $6,400 in attorneys’ fees sought by Plaintiff. (Ghermezian Decl., ¶ 14.) While Plaintiff presents a table in the memorandum of points and authorities setting forth 16 hours of attorney time (Mot. at p. 8), Mr. Ghermezian only attests to spending 8.5 hours of attorney time on this action. Thus, the attestation in Mr. Ghermezian’s declaration as to the 8.5 hours of attorney time spent is controlling. The Court informs Plaintiff that “[i]n law and motion practice, factual evidence is supplied to the court by way of declarations.” (Calcor Space Facility, Inc. v. Superior Court (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 216, 224.) Given that Plaintiff has not followed the interpleader process pursuant to Hood, supra, 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 82, however, any resolution of the attorneys’ fees and costs request would be premature.    

            Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Motion to File Interpleader of Funds, Discharge of Liability, and Recovery of Attorneys’ Fees and Costs is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.   

Moving Party to give notice, unless waived.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated:   February 18, 2025                 ___________________________________

                                                                                    Theresa M. Traber

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

            Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at  Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing.  All interested parties must be copied on the email.  It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.