AMERICAN CONTRACTORS INDEMNITY COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ALFREDO M. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC06308    Hearing Date: July 30, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Thu., July 30, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: American Contractors Indemnity Co. v. Rodriguez, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC06308 COMP. FILED: 07-05-19

NOTICE: OK DISC. C/O: 12-05-20

MOTION C/O: 12-20-20

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISCHARGE, AWARD OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY’S FEES, FOR ORDER FOR DEPOSIT, AND FOR DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company

RESP. PARTY: Defendants Christian Paredes and Marigold Paredes

MOTION TO DEPOSIT FEES, DISCHARGE LIABILITY, REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND RESTRAINING ORDER

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to $3,487.49 in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Interpleader funds of $11,512.51 are to be deposited with the Court within thirty (30) days of this order. Trial remains scheduled for January 4, 2021 in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: Filed on July 16, 2020 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 28, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On July 5, 2019, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for interpleader and injunctive relief against Defendants Alfredo M. Rodriguez (“Rodriguez”) individually and dba A V General Contractor (“AV”), Anna Kleinsorge (“Kleinsorge”), Christian Paredes (“Christian”), and Marigold Paredes (“Marigold”). On August 8, 2019, Defendant Kleinsorge filed an Answer, in pro per, and on October 9, 2019, Defendants Christian and Marigold filed their Answer. Defendants Rodriguez and AV were dismissed from the action on November 7, 2019. (11/6/19 Request for Dismissal.)

On February 24, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion for Order of Discharge, Award of Costs and Attorney’s Fees, Order for Deposit, and for Dismissal (the “Motion”). On July 16, 2020, Defendants Christian and Marigold filed an Opposition. To date, no reply has been filed.

1. 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 (i.e., an escrow-holder who receives conflicting demands from the parties to the escrow regarding the funds or documents he or she holds); 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 stakeholder is a defendant who claims no interest in the funds or property held, he or she need not file a cross-complaint interpleader in interpleader. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (a).) 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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (a).) 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, subd. (a), 386.5.) The motion must be supported by an affidavit by the stakeholder establishing the ground for interpleader. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, subd. (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, subd. (a), 386.5.)

The stakeholder may seek reimbursement for its costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred.

(UAP-Columbus 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. (Ibid.) Ultimately, such payment may be charged to one or more of the adverse claimants in the final judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6.)

Finally, the Court may issue an “order restraining all parties to the action 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).)

1. Discussion

Plaintiff’s request to be discharged from liability is GRANTED. As all claimants have been served with the Summons and Complaint, and have filed an answer or were dismissed from the action, relief is proper. The subject matter of this action is a Contractor’s State License Bond, No. 100317231, issued to AV in the amount of $15,000.00 (the “Bond”). (Mot., Nuñez Decl., ¶ 5.) Plaintiff states that it cannot determine the validity of the conflicting demands that have been made against the Bond. (Mot., p. 1:9-13, Nuñez Decl., ¶ 12.) Upon deposit of the funds with the Court, Plaintiff is discharged from further liability. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.5.) The Court also issues an order restraining all parties to the action from instituting or continuing to prosecute any other proceeding in any court in this state that would affect the parties’ rights and obligations as to the funds until further order of the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (f).)

In addition, Plaintiff requests $4,000.00 in attorney’s fees and costs. (Mot., Kim Decl., ¶¶ 4-5, Exh. A.) Plaintiff has expended substantial attorney’s fees and costs bringing this action and protecting itself from liability. Specifically, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the instant action against five Defendants, served Defendants, requested a dismissal, will appear at the hearing, and will deposit the Bond funds. (Id.) Plaintiff’s counsel states that, to date, Plaintiff has incurred $3,374.99 in fees and costs. (Id.) However, counsel’s ledger demonstrates that only $3,302.99 in attorney’s fees and costs have been incurred. (Id.) Plaintiff also seeks an additional $960.00 based on 4 hours of attorney time billed at $240.00 per hour to prepare a reply to any opposition to this Motion and for appearing and arguing at the hearing. (Id. at ¶ 5.)

Defendants Christian and Marigold oppose Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees and costs. They argue the request should be denied in its entirety or, in the alternative, granted for no more than $2,843.99. (Oppo., pp. 2:16-27; 4:23-25.) In Opposition, Defendants list several items on the ledger they argue should either be reduced or eliminated. (Oppo., p. 3:11- 4:17.) The Court is persuaded that the August 20, 2019 entry for $55.50 based on .3 hours billed at $185.00 for research on the Ryan Leaf matter should be stricken as it appears unrelated to the instant case. (See Mot., Kim Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. A.) Also, Plaintiff’s request for an additional 4 hours of attorney time to prepare a reply and to appear at the hearing for this Motion is reduced to one hour as no reply brief was filed, and parties are now encouraged to appear via CourtCall. (See Id.) However, the Court finds the remaining entries reasonable. Thus, Plaintiff is awarded reasonable fees and costs of $3,487.49. Plaintiff is to deposit funds of $11,512.51 within thirty (30) days of this order.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion is GRANTED. Plaintiff is entitled to $3,487.49 in reasonable attorney’s fees and costs. Interpleader funds of $11,512.51 are to be deposited with the Court within thirty (30) days of this order. Trial remains scheduled for January 4, 2021 in Department 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.