Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 23STLC01831, Date: 2023-10-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STLC01831    Hearing Date: October 5, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On April 13, 2020, Walter Omar Aliaga filed Case No. 20STCV14129 against Kenneth Management Group Inc. (“Kenneth”).  On June 23, 2022, Law Offices of Jack D. Josephson (“Law Offices”) filed a notice of attorney lien.  Aliaga dismissed that case due to settlement on May 2, 2023.

On March 20, 2023, Kenneth filed this interpleader action against Aliaga and Law Offices.

On August 28, 2023, Kenneth filed a motion for discharge and dismissal.  The request for judicial notice is granted.

“An interpleader action is traditionally viewed as two suits: one between the stakeholder and the claimants to determine the stakeholder’s right to interplead, and the other among the claimants to determine who shall receive the funds interpleaded.  [Citation.]  As against the stakeholder, claimants may raise only matters which go to whether the suit is properly one for interpleader, i.e., whether the elements of an interpleader action are present.  [Citation.]”  (State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90 Cal.App.4th 600, 612-613.)

“When a person brings an interpleader action, a two-step procedure is generally followed.  First, it is determined whether the plaintiff may bring the suit and force the claimants to interplead.  Second, 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.’”  (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1126-1127.)  “Interpleader confers rights only concerning discharge of the stakeholder and then leaves the conflicting claims to the fund for proper later resolution.”  (Id. at p. 1128.)

Kenneth states that it claims no interest in the $16,000 settlement funds and cannot resolve the conflicting demands of Aliaga and Law Offices.  Kenneth has deposited the funds with the Court.

Kenneth also seeks attorney fees and costs of $4,641.29 from the funds.  The stakeholder may seek reimbursement for its costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred, paid out of the funds deposited by the stakeholder.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6; UAP-Columbus JV 326132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1036.)  The Court finds that the requested attorney fees are excessive, and a reasonable amount of attorney fees is $1,485.00 (3 hours at $495).  The $1,206.29 in costs is reasonable.

The unopposed motion is GRANTED.  Kenneth is DISMISSED from this action.  The action is not terminated with respect to Aliaga and Law Offices.

Aliaga and Law Offices are restrained from instituting or prosecuting any other action against Kenneth with respect to the rights and obligations of the parties to this action.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (f).)

Kenneth is awarded a total of $2,691.29 in attorney fees and costs, to be paid from the deposited funds.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

         Dated this 5th day of October 2023