Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 21STCP00818, Date: 2022-09-20 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCP00818 Hearing Date: September 20, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: June
23, 2022
CASE NAME: Beverly
Law v. Key Health Medical Solutions, et al.
CASE NO.: 21STCP00818
PLAINTIFF
IN INTERPLEADER’S MOTION TO BE DISCHARGED
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Beverly Law
RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of
September 15, 2022
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1.
An order
discharging Plaintiff from liability and dismissing Plaintiff from interpleader
actions
2.
An order
granting the request for attorney’s
TENTATIVE RULING:
1.
Motion for Discharge is taken off calendar.
STATEMENT
OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On March 12,
2021, Plaintiff in Interpleader Beverly Law (“Plaintiff in Interpleader”) filed
a complaint in interpleader against Defendants in Interpleader Key Health
Medical Solutions, Coastal Medical Group, Redlands Chiropractic, Encino
Anesthesia Associates, INC, Department of Health Care Services, George Karim,
and Does 1 through 25. Plaintiff was retained by Karim, who was injured
in an accident on June 12, 2017, a collusion which gave rise to a claim in
favor of Karim. As a result of that accident, Karim sought medical treatment
for his injuries and agreed to a lien. The Medical Provider Defendants provided
medical treatment to Karim and assert a lien against settlement proceeds.
Plaintiff alleges that there is a conflict regarding the remaining balance due
to Karim, who is unwilling to settle his claim. Plaintiff is unsure how to
distribute funds without the risk of being sued for inappropriate distribution
of settlement funds given the Medical Provider Defendants’ competing claims for
the funds with Karim.
On August 5, 2021,
Petitioner Beverly Law filed a Motion to be Discharged,
On October 1,
2021, the Court took the motion off calendar because there was no indication
that the summons and complain had been properly served on the Defendants.
On March 10, 2022
the Court preliminarily intended to deny the motion and then continued the
matter to May 9, 2022.
On August 26,
2022, Petitioner Beverly Law filed another Motion to be Discharged.
LEGAL STANDARD
Interpleader is a procedure whereby a person holding money
or personal property to which conflicting claims are being made by others, can
join the adverse claimants and force them to litigate their claims among
themselves. Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 Cal.2d 497, 508; City
of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.
Once the stakeholder’s right to interplead is established,
and he or she deposits the money or personal property in court, he or she may
be discharged from liability to any of the claimants. This enables the
stakeholder to avoid multiplicity of actions, and the risk of inconsistent
results if each of the claimants were to sue him or her separately. Cantu
v. Resolution Trust Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 857, 874; City of Morgan
Hill, supra, 71 Cal.App.4th at 1122.
“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 . . . . 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.” State Farm Fire & Cas. Co. v. Pietak (2001) 90
Cal.App.4th 600, 612.
If the defendant stakeholder claims no interest in the funds or property held, he or
she need not file an interpleader cross
complaint. He or she may simply apply to
the court for permission to deposit the money or property with the court clerk,
and for an order discharging him or her from further liability to the adverse
claimants. Such order will also substitute the adverse claimants as
parties to the action; or, if only money is involved, simply dismiss the
stakeholder. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386(a), 386.5. The motion must be
supported by an affidavit by the stakeholder establishing the ground for
interpleader. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386(a), 386.5. Notice of the
motion must be served on each of the adverse claimants to the funds or
property. Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386(a), 386.5.
The stakeholder may seek reimbursement for his or her costs
and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred. UAPColumbus JV
326132 v. Nesbitt (1991) 234 Cal.App.3d 1028, 1036. The court may
order payment thereof out of the funds deposited by the stakeholder. Code
Civ. Proc., § 386.6.
ANALYSIS:
Although on March 10, 2022
the Court continued the motion, it is clear that once again Plaintiff has failed
to provide valid proof of services as to Defendants Key Health Medical Solutions,
Coastal Medical Group, Redlands Chiropractic, Encino Anesthesia Associates, Inc.,
and Department of Health Care Services. The purported proof of services were
completed by an unregistered process server who checked the box that he served
individuals. These parties clearly are
not individuals and are, thus, subject to difference service rules.
Moreover, it appears to the
court that the entire $10,200 settlement amount is in dispute, including Plaintiff’s
initial attorney fees. Yet, Plaintiff only deposited $2,879.46. In addition, Plaintiff is claiming an
additional $2,185 for attorney fees to file this petition and motion. It seems clear that before this Court has
even ruled upon this request, Plaintiff has taken the initiative to withhold this
amount from the initial deposit of funds to the Court.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the
Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Motion for Discharge is taken off
calendar.
Order to Show Cause why matter should not be dismissed for
failing to file valid proof of service within two years pursuant to CCP § 583.420
is scheduled for March 12, 2023 at 8:30 AM.
Clerk to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 20, 2022 ___________________________________
Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court