This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 10/25/2020 at 04:16:53 (UTC).

GANAHL LUMBER COMPANY VS AKOP KESABLYAN, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 10/15/2019 GANAHL LUMBER COMPANY filed a Property - Other Real Property lawsuit against AKOP KESABLYAN. 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:

    *******9498

  • Filing Date:

    10/15/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Property - Other Real Property

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JAMES E. BLANCARTE

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs and Cross Defendants

GANAHL LUMBER COMPANY

BLOCK ALEXANDRA

YONEYAMA REN

KESABLYAN AKOP

Defendants and Cross Plaintiffs

WESTERN NATIONAL MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

VENTURE INVESTMENT GROUP LLC

AKOP KESABLYAN INDIVIDUALLY AND AS TRUSTEE OF THE CHALK TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 9 2017

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

FILER NORMAN

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

PAGAN JOHN M.

Cross Defendant Attorney

MELKONIAN GEOFFREY

 

Court Documents

Order - Dismissal - Order - Dismissal

10/21/2020: Order - Dismissal - Order - Dismissal

Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

10/1/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance on Motion to Deposit

10/2/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance on Motion to Deposit

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendant Ren Yoneyama fili...) of 08/31/2020

8/31/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Order to Show Cause Re: Status of Defendant Ren Yoneyama fili...) of 08/31/2020

Answer - Answer

7/14/2020: Answer - Answer

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion to Depo...)

7/14/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion to Depo...)

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling on Motion to Deposit

7/15/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Ruling on Motion to Deposit

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

3/12/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to Deposit by Stakeholder

3/9/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: to Deposit by Stakeholder

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

2/6/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

1/13/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

12/30/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

12/30/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Summons - Summons on Complaint

11/26/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

11/26/2019: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Summons - Summons on Complaint

10/15/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

10/15/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

10/15/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

16 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/18/2022
  • Hearing10/18/2022 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
  • 04/13/2021
  • Hearing04/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/09/2020
  • Hearing12/09/2020 at 10:00 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: (name extension)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Motion re: to Deposit by Stakeholder: Filed By: Western National Mutual Insurance Company (Cross-Complainant); Result: Granted; Result Date: 10/21/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketOrder - Dismissal; Filed by: Court

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Disbursement of Funds scheduled for 12/09/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketOn the Cross-Complaint filed by Western National Mutual Insurance Company on 11/26/2019, entered Order for Dismissal without prejudice as to Ganahl Lumber Company

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion to Depo...)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/21/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Notice of Motion and Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder scheduled for 10/21/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 10/21/2020; Result Type to Held - Taken under Submission

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continuance on Motion to Deposit; Filed by: Western National Mutual Insurance Company (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 11/26/2019
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by: Western National Mutual Insurance Company (Defendant); As to: Ganahl Lumber Company (Plaintiff); Akop Kesablyan (Cross-Defendant); Alexandra Block (Cross-Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/25/2019
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by: Western National Mutual Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/18/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 04/13/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/16/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Ganahl Lumber Company (Plaintiff); As to: AKOP KESABLYAN, individually and as Trustee of THE CHALK TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2017 (Defendant); Venture Investment Group, LLC (Defendant); Western National Mutual Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Ganahl Lumber Company (Plaintiff); As to: AKOP KESABLYAN, individually and as Trustee of THE CHALK TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2017 (Defendant); Venture Investment Group, LLC (Defendant); Western National Mutual Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/15/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Ganahl Lumber Company (Plaintiff); As to: AKOP KESABLYAN, individually and as Trustee of THE CHALK TRUST DATED FEBRUARY 9, 2017 (Defendant); Venture Investment Group, LLC (Defendant); Western National Mutual Insurance Company (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC09498    Hearing Date: October 21, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., October 21, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Ganahl Lumber Co. v. Kesablyan, et al. COMPL. FILED: 10-15-19

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC09498 DISC. C/O: 03-14-21

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: 03-29-21

TRIAL DATE: 04-13-21

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

MOVING PARTY: Cross-Complainant Western National Mutual Insurance Company

RESP. PARTY: None

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

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Cross-Complainant Western National Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, For Discharge, and Request for Attorney’s Fees is CONTINUED TO NOV 16, 2020at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Cross-Complainant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

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 October 19, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of October 19, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Ganahl Lumber Company (“Plaintiff” or “Ganahl) filed a complaint for money on personal guaranty, foreclosure of mechanic’s lien and suretyship against Defendants Akop Kesablyan (“Kesablyan”) individually and as trustee of The Chalk Trust Dated February 9, 2017 (the “Trust”), Venture Investment Group, LLC (“Venture”), and Western National Mutual Insurance Company (“Cross-Complainant” or “Western”).

On November 25, 2019, Western filed a general denial and, on the following day, it filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Kesablyan, Ganahl, Alexandra Block (“Block”), and Ren Yoneyama (“Yoneyama”). Default was entered as to Cross-Defendants Yoneyama, Block, and Kesablyan on February 6, 2020. Notably, Cross-Complainant Western has not filed a proof of service demonstrating Ganahl was served with the Cross-Complaint, nor has Ganahl filed an answer or had default entered against it.

On March 9, 2020, Cross-Complainant filed the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, and Request for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). On March 17, 2020, per Plaintiff’s request, the Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. (3/12/20 Request for Dismissal.)

At the initial hearing on July 14, 2020, the Court signed the parties' stipulation to set aside Cross-Defendant Yoneyama’s default and ordered him to file an answer to the Cross-Complaint within thirty days. (7/14/20 Minute Order.) That same day, Cross-Defendant Yoneyama filed his Answer.

To date, no opposition to the Motion has been 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. (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).)

III. Discussion

The subject matter of this action is a $15,000.00 Contractor’s License Bond, Bond No. W70920999137 issued to EZ Builders, Inc. (“EZ Builders”). (Mot., Pagan Decl., ¶¶ 2, 8.) Cross-Complainant states that it has served all parties with this action. Cross-Defendants Block and Kesablyan were served with the Cross-Complaint on December 12, 2019 and Cross-Defendant Yoneyama was served on December 20, 2019. (12/30/19 Proofs of Service; 1/15/20 Proof of Service.) However, Cross-Complainant did not file a proof of service demonstrating Cross-Defendant Ganahl was served with the Cross-Complaint. Nor has Cross-Defendant Ganahl filed an answer or had its default taken. Thus, the Court cannot find that all claimants have been properly served with the cross-action.

In addition, although Cross-Complainant identifies EZ Builders as a corporate cross-defendant in this Motion and its Cross-Complaint (id. at ¶ 5; Cross-Compl., ¶ 5), it was not named in or served with this cross-action. Thus, Cross-Complainant is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers addressing this error.

IV. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Cross-Complainant Western National Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, For Discharge, and Request for Attorney’s Fees is CONTINUED TO NOV 16, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Cross-Complainant must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC09498    Hearing Date: July 14, 2020    Dept: 25

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

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant/Cross-Complainant Western National Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, For Discharge, and Request for Attorney’s Fees is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. In addition, Western’s Cross-Complaint is HEREBY STRICKEN.

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 July 10, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 10, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background & Discussion

On October 15, 2019, Plaintiff Ganahl Lumber Company (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint for money on personal guaranty, foreclosure of mechanic’s lien and suretyship against Defendants Akop Kesablyan (“Kesablyan”) individually and as trustee of The Chalk Trust Dated February 9, 2017 (the “Trust”), Venture Investment Group, LLC (“Venture”), and Western National Mutual Insurance Company (“Western”).

On November 25, 2019, Defendant Western filed a general denial and the following day, on November 26, 2019, it filed a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Kesablyan, Ganahl Lumber Company (“Plaintiff”), Alexandra Block (“Block”), and Ren Yoneyama (“Yoneyama”). Default was entered as to Cross-Defendants Yoneyama, Block, and Kesablyan on February 6, 2020. Notably, Western has not filed a proof of service demonstrating Plaintiff was served with the Cross-Complaint, nor has Plaintiff filed an answer or had default entered against it.

On March 9, 2020, Cross-Complainant filed the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, and Request for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

On March 17, 2020, per Plaintiff’s request, the Complaint was dismissed with prejudice. (3/12/20 Request for Dismissal.)

A. Timeliness of the Cross-Complaint

As an initial matter, the Court discusses the timing of Western’s Cross-Complaint. Code of Civil Procedure section 428.50 provides that “[a] party shall file a cross-complaint against any one of the parties who filed the complaint…against him or her before or at the same time as the answer to the complaint.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (a).) If a cross-complaint is not filed within the time specified in subdivision (a), it is mandatory that the party seeking to file the cross-complaint obtain leave of court before doing so. (Code Civ. Proc., § 428.50, subd. (c); Department of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 296.)

Here, Western failed to file its Cross-Complaint before or at the same time as its Answer. More importantly, Western did not seek leave of court to file its Cross-Complaint. As the Cross-Complaint was filed without the Court’s permission, it is HEREBY STRICKEN.

II. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Western National Mutual Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, For Discharge, and Request for Attorney’s Fees is PLACED OFF CALENDAR. In addition, Western’s Cross-Complaint is HEREBY STRICKEN.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

[