This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/17/2021 at 08:31:25 (UTC).

CAPITAL TRUST ESCROW, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CADENCE ACQUISITION LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/29/2019 CAPITAL TRUST ESCROW, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed an Other lawsuit against CADENCE ACQUISITION LLC, A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JAMES E. BLANCARTE. The case status is Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******0024

  • Filing Date:

    10/29/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CAPITAL TRUST ESCROW A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

Defendants

ALL YEAR FOOD SERVICES INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

CONROY COMMERCIAL INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

CADENCE ACQUISITION LLC A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BLOOM DAVID BRUCE

Defendant Attorneys

RADFORD MICHAEL J.

MALEK JONATHAN A

GONZALES MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted; He...)

9/20/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted; He...)

Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

8/20/2021: Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted - Motion to Deem RFA's Admitted

Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

8/20/2021: Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion - Motion to Compel Discovery (not Further Discovery) - 1 moving party, 1 motion

Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

8/27/2021: Substitution of Attorney - Substitution of Attorney

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application continue trial

7/15/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application continue trial

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application continue trial)

7/16/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application continue trial)

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to continue trial

7/16/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order to continue trial

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Discharge)

5/11/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Order Motion for Discharge)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

5/12/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DISCHARGE MOTION

5/6/2021: Notice (name extension) - Notice OF CONTINUANCE OF HEARING ON DISCHARGE MOTION

Answer - Answer

7/9/2020: Answer - Answer

Answer - Answer

9/1/2020: Answer - Answer

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDERS FOR DISCHARGE AND DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF, AND FOR PAYMENT OF FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLA

10/27/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR ORDERS FOR DISCHARGE AND DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF, AND FOR PAYMENT OF FEES AND COSTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES; DECLA

Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE OF MOTION FOR ORDERS FOR DISCHARGE AND DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF, AND FOR PAYMENT OF FEE

2/4/2021: Ex Parte Application (name extension) - Ex Parte Application EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDER ADVANCING HEARING DATE OF MOTION FOR ORDERS FOR DISCHARGE AND DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF, AND FOR PAYMENT OF FEE

Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application - Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

2/4/2021: Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application - Declaration in Support of Ex Parte Application

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDE...)

2/8/2021: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Ex Parte Application EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR ORDE...)

Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

2/9/2021: Notice of Ruling - Notice of Ruling

Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

3/26/2021: Stipulation and Order (name extension) - Stipulation and Order STIPULATION TO CONTINUE TRIAL DEADLINES; [PROPOSED] ORDER

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/01/2022
  • Hearing11/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/01/2021
  • Hearing12/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted; He...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/20/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 09/20/2021; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/20/2021
  • DocketPursuant to the request of defendant, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 10/28/2021 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 12/01/2021 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/17/2021
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Hearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 09/20/2021 10:00 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/27/2021
  • DocketSubstitution of Attorney; Filed by: Cadence Acquisition LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Deem Request for Admissions Admitted scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2021
  • DocketHearing on Motion to Compel Discovery (not "Further Discovery") scheduled for 09/20/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
37 More Docket Entries
  • 12/09/2019
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Conroy Commercial, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); As to: Capital Trust Escrow, a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/27/2019
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Capital Trust Escrow, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Conroy Commercial, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 11/12/2019; Service Cost: 58.77; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/27/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 11/01/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/30/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Capital Trust Escrow, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Cadence Acquisition LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (Defendant); All Year Food Services, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Conroy Commercial, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Capital Trust Escrow, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Cadence Acquisition LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (Defendant); All Year Food Services, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Conroy Commercial, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Capital Trust Escrow, a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Cadence Acquisition LLC, a Colorado limited liability company (Defendant); All Year Food Services, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant); Conroy Commercial, Inc., a California corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

b'

Case Number: 19STLC10024 Hearing Date: September 20, 2021 Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: (1)\r\nMOTION FOR AN ORDER DEEMING ADMITTED ALL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS,\r\nSET ONE, AS TO DEFENDANT CADENCE ACQUISITION, LLC AND REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

(2)\r\nMOTION FOR AN ORDER COMPELLING RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF\r\nDOCUMENTS, SET ONE, AS TO DEFENDANT CADENCE ACQUISITION, LLC AND REQUEST FOR\r\nSANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOVING PARTY: Defendant\r\nAll Year Food Services, Inc.

\r\n\r\n

RESP. PARTY: None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MOTION\r\nTO DEEM REQUESTS FOR ADMISSION ADMITTED; REQUEST FOR SANCTIONS

\r\n\r\n

(CCP §§ 2031.300; 2033.280)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

TENTATIVE RULING:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant\r\nAll Year Food Services, Inc.’s (1) Motion for an Order Deeming Admitted All\r\nResponses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and (2) Motion for Order\r\nCompelling Responses to Request for Production of Documents, Set One, are\r\nGRANTED. Defendant Cadence Acquisitions, LLC is ordered to serve verified\r\nresponses without objections to the Requests for Production, Set One, within\r\ntwenty (20) days of notice of this order. Defendant All Year’s request for\r\nsanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of $910.00 to be paid within thirty\r\n(30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

SERVICE: \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nProof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\nCorrect Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

\r\n\r\n

[X]\r\n16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

OPPOSITION: None filed as of\r\nSeptember 16, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

REPLY: None filed as\r\nof September 16, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

ANALYSIS:

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

I. \r\nBackground

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff Capital Trust Escrow\r\n(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in interpleader against Defendants Cadence\r\nAcquisition, LLC (“Cadence”), All Year Food Services, Inc. (“All Year”), and\r\nConroy Commercial, Inc. (“Conroy”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Answers were\r\nfiled by Defendant Conroy on December 9, 2019, by Defendant Cadence on July 9,\r\n2020, and by Defendant All Year on October 27, 2020.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Plaintiff filed a motion to be discharged and for\r\nattorney’s fees and costs on October 27, 2020. The Court granted Plaintiff’s\r\nmotion on May 11, 2021, discharged it from this action, and awarded it\r\n$6,863.86 in fees and costs. (5/11/21 Minute Order.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant All Year filed the instant (1) Motion for an\r\nOrder Deeming Admitted All Responses to Requests for Admission, Set One, and\r\nRequest for Sanctions and (2) Motion for an Order Compelling Responses to\r\nRequest for Production of Documents, Set One, and Request for Sanctions\r\n(collectively, the “Motions”). No opposition briefs were filed.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

II. \r\nLegal\r\nStandard & Discussion

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A. Request for Production & Requests for Admission

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

A party must respond to requests for production of\r\ndocuments within 30 days after service. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.260, subd.\r\n(a).) If a party to whom requests for production of documents are directed does\r\nnot provide timely responses, the requesting party may move for an order\r\ncompelling responses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd.\r\n(c).) The party also waives the right to make any objections, including one\r\nbased on privilege or work-product protection. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300, subd.\r\n(a).) There is no time limit for a motion to compel responses to the production\r\nof documents other than the cut-off on hearing discovery motions 15 days before\r\ntrial. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 2024.020, subd. (a); Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300.)\r\nNo meet and confer efforts are required before filing a motion to compel\r\nresponses to the discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2031.300; Sinaiko Healthcare Consulting, Inc. v. Pacific Healthcare Consultants\r\n(2007) 148 Cal.App.4th 390, 411.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Similarly, a party must respond to requests for\r\nadmissions within 30 days after service of such requests. (Code Civ. Proc., §\r\n2033.250, subd. (a).) “If a party to\r\nwhom requests for admission are directed fails to serve a timely response…(a)\r\n[that party] waives any objection to the requests, including one based on\r\nprivilege or on the protection for work product…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 2033.280,\r\nsubd. (a).) “The requesting party may move for an order that the genuineness of\r\nany documents and the truth of any matters specified in the requests be deemed\r\nadmitted, as well as for a monetary sanction under Chapter 7.” (Id. at subd. (b).) A motion dealing with the failure to respond,\r\nrather than with inadequate responses, does not require the requesting party to\r\nmeet and confer with the responding party. (Deymer\r\nv. Costa Mesa Mobile Home Estates (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 393, 395, fn. 4\r\n[disapproved on other grounds in Wilcox\r\nv. Birtwhistle (1999) 21 Cal.4th 973]. There is no time limit within which\r\na motion to have matters deemed admitted must be made. (Brigante v. Huang (1993) 20 Cal.App.4th 1569, 1585.)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Here, Defendant All Year served\r\nDefendant Cadence with Requests for Production, Set One, and Requests for\r\nAdmission, Set One, on December 24, 2020 via mail. (Motions, Salek Decl., ¶¶ 2,\r\nExhs. A.) Defendant All Year’s counsel granted Defendant Cadence’s counsel\r\nseveral extensions to respond. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-5.) As of the date these Motions\r\nwere filed, Defendant Cadence had not served any responses. (Id. at ¶¶ 5.) Thus, Defendant All Year is entitled to (1) an order deeming\r\nthe Requests for Admission, Set One, admitted against Defendant Cadence and (2)\r\nan order compelling Defendant Cadence to serve verified responses without\r\nobjections.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

B. Sanctions

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Code of Civil Procedure section 2023.030, subdivision (a)\r\nprovides, in pertinent part, that the court may impose a monetary sanction on a\r\nparty engaging in the misuse of the discovery process to pay the reasonable\r\nexpenses, including attorney’s fees, incurred by anyone as a result of that\r\nconduct. A misuse of the discovery process includes failing to respond or to\r\nsubmit to an authorized method of discovery. (Code Civ. Proc., § 2023.010,\r\nsubd. (d).) Furthermore, it is “mandatory that the Court impose a monetary\r\nsanction…on the party or attorney, or both, whose failure to serve a timely\r\nresponse to requests for admission necessitated this motion.” (Code Civ. Proc.,\r\n§ 2033.280, subd. (c).)

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

The Court finds Defendant Cadence’s\r\nfailure to respond to Defendant All Year’s discovery requests a misuse of the\r\ndiscovery process. The Court is also required to impose a monetary sanction\r\nagainst Defendant Cadence for its failure to respond to the Requests for\r\nAdmission under Code of Civil Procedure section 2033.280, subdivision (c).

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Defendant All Year seeks sanctions\r\nof $1,700.00 based on 4 hours of attorney time billed at $395.00 per hour and\r\ntwo filing fees of $60.00. (Motions, Malek Decl., ¶¶ 7.) However, the amount\r\nsought is excessive given the simplicity of these Motions and the lack of\r\nopposition and reply. The Court finds $910.00, based on 2 hours of attorney\r\ntime and two filing fees, to be reasonable. \r\n

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

III. \r\nConclusion\r\n& Order

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant All Year Food Services, Inc.’s (1)\r\nMotion for an Order Deeming Admitted All Responses to Requests for Admission,\r\nSet One, and (2) Motion for Order Compelling Responses to Request for\r\nProduction of Documents, Set One, are GRANTED. Defendant Cadence Acquisitions,\r\nLLC is ordered to serve verified responses without objections to the Requests\r\nfor Production, Set One, within twenty (20) days of notice of this order.\r\nDefendant All Year’s request for sanctions is also GRANTED in the amount of\r\n$910.00 to be paid within thirty (30) days of notice of this order.

\r\n\r\n

\r\n\r\n

Moving party is ordered to give\r\nnotice.

'

Case Number: 19STLC10024    Hearing Date: May 11, 2021    Dept: 25

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDERS FOR DISCHARGE AND DISMISSAL OF PLAINTIFF AND FOR PAYMENT OF FEES AND COSTS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Capital Trust Escrow

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DEPOSIT BY STAKEHOLDER, TO DISCHARGE LIABILITY, AND REQUEST FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Capital Trust Escrow’s unopposed Motion for Order for Discharge and Dismissal of Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees of $6,929.00 and costs of $634.86 is also GRANTED.

Trial remains scheduled for August 16, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25.

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: None filed as of May 7, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of May 7, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 29, 2019, Plaintiff Capital Trust Escrow (“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint in interpleader against Defendants Cadence Acquisition, LLC (“Cadence”), All Year Food Services, Inc. (“All Year”), and Conroy Commercial, Inc. (“Conroy”) (collectively, “Defendants”). Answers were filed by Defendant Conroy on December 9, 2019, by Defendant Cadence on July 9, 2020, and by Defendant All Year on October 27, 2020.

Plaintiff filed instant Motion for Orders for Discharge and Dismissal of Plaintiff, and for Payment of Fees and Costs (the “Motion”). No opposition was filed.

II. 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. (For example, an escrow-holder who receives conflicting demands from the parties to the escrow regarding the funds or documents he or she holds.) (Hancock Oil Co. v. Hopkins (1944) 24 C2d 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 a 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 v. Brown, 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, 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).) The supporting affidavit must also state that the moving party 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…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 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.) “Where a deposit has been made pursuant to Section 386, the court shall, upon the application of any party to the action, order such deposit to be invested in an insured interest-bearing account.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.1.)

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. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6.)

III. Discussion

The subject matter of this action is funds of $25,000.00 that were deposited into an escrow account, Account No. 005110-GG with Plaintiff for the sale and transfer of Defendant All Year’s restaurant business and liquor license to Defendant Cadence. (Mot., p. 3:3-8, Gabayan Decl., ¶¶ 4-5.) The sale was never finalized. (Id. at ¶ 6.) The escrow has been inactive for about two years and mutual cancellation instructions have not been received by Plaintiff. (Id.) Conflicting demands by Defendant All Year and Defendant Cadence have been made upon the escrow funds. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Plaintiff states it is disinterested as to whom receives the escrow funds and is a mere stakeholder with no legal relationship with any Defendant. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Plaintiff deposited the $25,000.00 escrow funds with the Court on November 12, 2019.

Plaintiff’s request to be discharged from liability is GRANTED. All claimants have been served with the Summons and Complaint and have filed an Answer. The Court also enters a restraining order to prevent the prosecution of other actions affecting the rights and obligations as between the parties in this interpleader action. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, 386.5.)

Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees of $6,929.00 and costs of $1,134.86. (Mot., Adler Decl., ¶¶ 11-14, Exh. E.) The fees requested are based on 12.4 hours of attorney time billed at $410.00 per hour for time spent drafting the Complaint, depositing the escrow funds, and communicating with Plaintiff and potential claimants. (Id.) It also includes 3.5 hours of attorney time spent drafting this Motion and 1 hour to appear at the hearing on this Motion. (Id.) Costs include filing fees, service fees, and a $500.00 escrow cancellation fee as provided in the escrow agreement. (Id.) However, because the escrow cancellation fee is not a cost incurred in filing and maintaining this action, the Court declines to award it here. Having reviewed the remaining entries in the attached ledger, the Court finds the attorney’s fees and costs sought to be reasonable.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Capital Trust Escrow’s unopposed Motion for Order for Discharge and Dismissal of Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request for attorney’s fees of $6,929.00 and costs of $634.86 is also GRANTED.

Trial remains scheduled for August 16, 2021 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 25.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where CAPITAL TRUST ESCROW is a litigant

Latest cases where CADENCE ACQUISITIONS LLC A COLORADO LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer MALEK JONATHAN ALEXAN

Latest cases represented by Lawyer GONZALES MICHAEL