This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/25/2020 at 09:19:58 (UTC).

POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS ANDREW C. ZALDIVAR, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/09/2019 POOL ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS, INC , A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION filed a Contract - Debt Collection lawsuit against ANDREW C ZALDIVAR. 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:

    *******8249

  • Filing Date:

    09/09/2019

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Debt Collection

  • 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

POOL & ELECTRICAL PRODUCTS INC. A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

ZALDIVAR ANDREW C. DBA WOLF CREEK DESIGN BUILD

HUGHES PATRICK

HUGHES LAURA

HARO POOL PLASTERING CORP A CORPORATION

STATHES AMY BETH

MAROTTA AN INDIVIDUAL STEVEN A.

NGUYEN AN INDIVIDUAL CHRISTINE R.

Defendants and Cross Defendants

ZALDIVAR ANDREW C. DBA WOLF CREEK DESIGN BUILD

HUGHES PATRICK

MAROTTA STEVEN A.

WESTERN SURETY COMPANY A SOUTH DAKOTA CORPORATION

STATHES AMY BETH

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff

WESTERN SURETY COMPANY A SOUTH DAKOTA CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff and Cross Defendant Attorneys

MAY MICHAEL D

SULLIVAN JOHN

Cross Defendant and Defendant Attorneys

SULLIVAN JOHN

SOSA CARLOS

Defendant and Cross Plaintiff Attorney

SOSA CARLOS

 

Court Documents

Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

9/14/2020: Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment - Notice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

9/14/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

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

6/4/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

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

3/6/2020: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Deposit by Stakeholder

Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

3/6/2020: Memorandum of Points & Authorities - Memorandum of Points & Authorities

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

3/6/2020: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

1/23/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

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

12/20/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

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

12/20/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit Of Reasonable Diligence

12/4/2019: Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit Of Reasonable Diligence

Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence

12/4/2019: Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence

Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

11/8/2019: Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Cross-Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

10/24/2019: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence

10/25/2019: Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence

Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

10/15/2019: Proof of Personal Service - Proof of Personal Service

Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

9/19/2019: Cross-Complaint - Cross-Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

9/9/2019: Complaint - Complaint

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

9/9/2019: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case - Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/12/2022
  • Hearing09/12/2022 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
  • 03/08/2021
  • Hearing03/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Department 25 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation on 09/09/2019, entered Request for Dismissal without prejudice filed by Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation as to Steven A. Marotta

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/16/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Pursuant to the Request for Dismissal filed by Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation on 09/14/2020, Steven A. Marotta in Complaint filed by Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation on 09/09/2019 is dismissed without prejudice. Filed Date changed from 09/16/2020 to 09/14/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketRequest for Entry of Default / Judgment; Filed by: Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketNotice of Rejection Default/Clerk's Judgment; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/14/2020
  • DocketAddress for Michael D May (Attorney) null

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/07/2020
  • DocketNotice of Ruling; Filed by: Western Surety Company, a South Dakota corporation (Cross-Complainant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Deposit by Stakeholder)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/06/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Deposit by Stakeholder scheduled for 07/06/2020 at 10:00 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 07/06/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
35 More Docket Entries
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Western Surety Company, a South Dakota corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketGeneral Denial; Filed by: Western Surety Company, a South Dakota corporation (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/19/2019
  • DocketCross-Complaint; Filed by: Western Surety Company, a South Dakota corporation (Defendant); As to: Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); Andrew C. Zaldivar (Defendant); Patrick Hughes (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/08/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 09/12/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Andrew C. Zaldivar (Defendant); Steven A. Marotta (Defendant); Patrick Hughes (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Andrew C. Zaldivar (Defendant); Steven A. Marotta (Defendant); Patrick Hughes (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Pool & Electrical Products, Inc., a California corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Andrew C. Zaldivar (Defendant); Steven A. Marotta (Defendant); Patrick Hughes (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/09/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. James E. Blancarte in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC08249    Hearing Date: July 06, 2020    Dept: 25

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

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Western Surety Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder and for Discharge is GRANTED. Cross-Complainant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is also GRANTED in the amount of $4,000.00. Interpleader funds of $11,000 are to be deposited within thirty (30) days of receipt of this order.

Trial date remains scheduled for March 8, 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 July 1, 2020   [   ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 1, 2020   [   ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff Pool & Electrical Products, Inc. (“Pool & Electrical” or “Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, foreclosure of mechanic’s lien, common counts, collection on contractor’s license bond, violation of Business & Professions Code section 7108.5, and breach of written guarantee against Defendants Andrew C. Zaldivar (“Zaldivar”), individually and doing business as Wolf Creek Design Build (“Wolf Creek”), Steven Marotta (“Marrota”), Patrick Hughes (“Patrick”), and Western Surety Company (“Western Surety” or “Cross-Complainant”). Defendant Marrota filed an Answer on March 20, 2020.

On September 19, 2019, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Western Surety filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint for interpleader against Cross-Defendants Zaldivar, Wolf Creek, Pool & Electrical, Patrick, Laura Hughes (“Laura”), and Haro Pool Plastering Corp. (“Haro Pool”). Amy Beth Stathes (“Stathes”) was substituted for Roe 21 on October 24, 2019, and Marotta and Christine Nguyen (“Nguyen”) were substituted for Roe 22 and Roe 23, respectively, on November 8, 2019. Cross-Defendant Pool & Electrical filed an Answer on January 17, 2020, and Stathes filed her Answer on March 30, 2020.

On December 20, 2019, default was entered as to Cross-Defendants Patrick, Laura, and Haro Pool. On March 6, 2020, default was entered against Cross-Defendant Stathes.

On November 8, 2019, Zaldivar and Wolf Creek, were dismissed from the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendants Nguyen and Marotta were also dismissed from the Cross-Complaint without prejudice on January 27, 2020 and March 10, 2020, respectively.

On March 6, 2020, Cross-Complainant Western filed the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder; For Discharge of Stakeholder; Request for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition 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.  (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. Brownsupra, 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.)

  1. Discussion

Cross-Complainant Western Surety’s request to be discharged from liability is GRANTED. The subject matter of this action is a $15,000 Contractor’s State License Bond issued to Cross-Defendant Zaldivar, individually and dba Wolf Creek, Bond No. 63698074 (the “Bond”). (Mot., Sosa, ¶¶ 2, 8.) All claimants have been served with the Cross-Complaint and have either filed an answer, been dismissed, or have defaulted. Cross-Complainant Western Surety states it has no interest in the Bond proceeds, and that it cannot determine the validity of the conflicting demands that have been made as to the funds. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The Court also enters a restraining order to prevent the prosecution of other actions affecting the rights and obligations as between the parties in the interpleader. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, 386.5.)

In addition, the fees and costs sought by Cross-Complainant Western Surety are reasonable. Cross-Complainant’s counsel has expended substantial attorney’s fees and costs bringing this action and Motion, has served all Cross-Defendants, will deposit the bond, and has sought to preserve the surplus funds. (Mot., Sosa Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7, 10, Exhs. 1, 2.) Thus, attorney’s fees and costs are awarded in the amount of $4,000 (Id. at ¶ 10.) Cross-Complainant to deposit funds of $11,000.00 within ten (10) days of receipt of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Western Surety Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder and for Discharge is GRANTED. Cross-Complainant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is also GRANTED in the amount of $4,000.00. Interpleader funds of $11,000 are to be deposited within thirty (30) days of receipt of this order.

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

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC08249    Hearing Date: July 02, 2020    Dept: 25

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

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Defendant and Cross-Complainant Western Surety Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder and for Discharge is GRANTED. Cross-Complainant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is also GRANTED in the amount of $4,000.00. Interpleader funds of $11,000 are to be deposited within ten (10) days of receipt of this order.

Trial date remains scheduled for March 8, 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 July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of July 1, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On September 9, 2019, Plaintiff Pool & Electrical Products, Inc. (“Pool & Electrical” or “Plaintiff”) filed an action for breach of contract, foreclosure of mechanic’s lien, common counts, collection on contractor’s license bond, violation of Business & Professions Code section 7108.5, and breach of written guarantee against Defendants Andrew C. Zaldivar (“Zaldivar”), individually and doing business as Wolf Creek Design Build (“Wolf Creek”), Steven Marotta (“Marrota”), Patrick Hughes (“Patrick”), and Western Surety Company (“Western Surety” or “Cross-Complainant”). Defendant Marrota filed an Answer on March 20, 2020.

On September 19, 2019, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Western Surety filed an Answer and a Cross-Complaint for interpleader against Cross-Defendants Zaldivar, Wolf Creek, Pool & Electrical, Patrick, Laura Hughes (“Laura”), and Haro Pool Plastering Corp. (“Haro Pool”). Amy Beth Stathes (“Stathes”) was substituted for Roe 21 on October 24, 2019, and Marotta and Christine Nguyen (“Nguyen”) were substituted for Roe 22 and Roe 23, respectively, on November 8, 2019. Cross-Defendant Pool & Electrical filed an Answer on January 17, 2020, and Stathes filed her Answer on March 30, 2020.

On December 20, 2019, default was entered as to Cross-Defendants Patrick, Laura, and Haro Pool. On March 6, 2020, default was entered against Cross-Defendant Stathes.

On November 8, 2019, Zaldivar and Wolf Creek, were dismissed from the Cross-Complaint. Cross-Defendants Nguyen and Marotta were also dismissed from the Cross-Complaint without prejudice on January 27, 2020 and March 10, 2020, respectively.

On March 6, 2020, Cross-Complainant Western filed the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder; For Discharge of Stakeholder; Request for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition 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. (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.)

  1. Discussion

Cross-Complainant Western Surety’s request to be discharged from liability is GRANTED. The subject matter of this action is a $15,000 Contractor’s State License Bond issued to Cross-Defendant Zaldivar, individually and dba Wolf Creek, Bond No. 63698074 (the “Bond”). (Mot., Sosa, ¶¶ 2, 8.) All claimants have been served with the Cross-Complaint and have either filed an answer, been dismissed, or have defaulted. Cross-Complainant Western Surety states it has no interest in the Bond proceeds, and that it cannot determine the validity of the conflicting demands that have been made as to the funds. (Id. at ¶ 8.) The Court also enters a restraining order to prevent the prosecution of other actions affecting the rights and obligations as between the parties in the interpleader. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386, 386.5.)

In addition, the fees and costs sought by Cross-Complainant Western Surety are reasonable. Cross-Complainant’s counsel has expended substantial attorney’s fees and costs bringing this action and Motion, has served all Cross-Defendants, will deposit the bond, and has sought to preserve the surplus funds. (Mot., Sosa Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7, 10, Exhs. 1, 2.) Thus, attorney’s fees and costs are awarded in the amount of $4,000 (Id. at ¶ 10.) Cross-Complainant to deposit funds of $11,000.00 within ten (10) days of receipt of this order.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Defendant and Cross-Complainant Western Surety Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder and for Discharge is GRANTED. Cross-Complainant’s request for attorney’s fees and costs is also GRANTED in the amount of $4,000.00. Interpleader funds of $11,000 are to be deposited within ten (10) days of receipt of this order.

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

Moving party is ordered to give notice.