This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 06/18/2021 at 00:02:31 (UTC).

RICE & BLOOMFIELD, LLP VS DAVID NAKAMURA, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 06/13/2018 RICE BLOOMFIELD, LLP filed an Other lawsuit against DAVID NAKAMURA. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is JON R. TAKASUGI. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******8397

  • Filing Date:

    06/13/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Other

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

JON R. TAKASUGI

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

RICE & BLOOMFIELD LLP

Defendants

NAKAMURA DAVID

PLAYA ADVANCED SURGICAL INSTITUTE LLC

SUNMIN PARK ACUPUNCTURE

BEVERLY HILLS PAIN INSTITUTE AND NEUROLOGY

DR. BRIGITTE ROZENBERG CHIROPRACTIC INC.

GARY E. BRAZINA M.D. INC

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

BLOOMFIELD TODD JON

Defendant Attorney

KRUPKA KEITH MICHAEL

 

Court Documents

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

4/28/2020: Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order - Notice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order

Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motion to Distribute Interpleaded Funds)

7/9/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Court Order Re: Motion to Distribute Interpleaded Funds)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motion to Distribute Interpleaded Funds) of 07/09/2020

7/9/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Court Order Re: Motion to Distribute Interpleaded Funds) of 07/09/2020

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Distribution of Interpleaded Funds)

9/29/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Distribution of Interpleaded Funds)

Stipulation (name extension) - No Order - Stipulation - No Order to Enter Judgment and Distribute Funds

11/9/2020: Stipulation (name extension) - No Order - Stipulation - No Order to Enter Judgment and Distribute Funds

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

6/10/2021: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt - Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

3/19/2019: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt - Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

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

3/19/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

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

3/19/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

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

3/19/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt - Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

3/19/2019: Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt - Notice and Acknowledgment of Receipt

Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort - Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort

10/18/2018: Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort - Notice of Rejection - Application for Default Judgment by Court - Contract or Tort

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

9/20/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

9/11/2018: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

Proof of Service by Substituted Service

8/13/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet

6/13/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

26 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/10/2021
  • DocketOn the Amended Complaint (1st) filed by Rice & Bloomfield, LLP on 06/26/2018, entered Request for Dismissal with prejudice filed by Rice & Bloomfield, LLP as to the entire action

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/10/2021
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/16/2021 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 06/10/2021

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Distribution of Interpleaded Funds)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/02/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Distribution of Interpleaded Funds scheduled for 12/02/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 updated: Result Date to 12/02/2020; Result Type to Held - Motion Granted

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketStipulation - No Order to Enter Judgment and Distribute Funds; Filed by: Rice & Bloomfield, LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/09/2020
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: David Nakamura (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/06/2020
  • DocketThere being no judge available this date, Hearing on Motion - Other Distribution of Interpleaded Funds scheduled for 11/12/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Advanced and Continued - by Court was rescheduled to 12/02/2020 10:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/02/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Status of Disbursement of Interplead funds scheduled for 10/21/2020 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/02/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/29/2020
  • DocketHearing on Motion - Other Distribution of Interpleaded Funds scheduled for 11/12/2020 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 25

    Read MoreRead Less
37 More Docket Entries
  • 07/18/2018
  • DocketDeclaration of non service; Filed by: Rice & Bloomfield, LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/26/2018
  • DocketAmended Complaint (1st); Filed by: Rice & Bloomfield, LLP (Plaintiff); As to: David Nakamura (Defendant); Gary E. Brazina, M.D., Inc (Defendant); Playa Advanced Surgical Institute, LLC (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Jon R. Takasugi in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 12/11/2019 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/14/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 06/16/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Rice & Bloomfield, LLP (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Rice & Bloomfield, LLP (Plaintiff); As to: David Nakamura (Defendant); Gary E. Brazina, M.D., Inc (Defendant); Playa Advanced Surgical Institute, LLC (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/13/2018
  • DocketUpdated -- Amended Complaint (1st): Status Date changed from 06/26/2018 to 06/13/2018

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC08397    Hearing Date: December 02, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Wed., December 2, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Rice & Bloomfield, LLP v. Nakamura, et al. COMPL. FILED: 06-03-18

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC08397 DISC. C/O: NONE

NOTICE: OK DISC. MOT. C/O: NONE

TRIAL DATE: NONE

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE INTERPLEADED FUNDS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rice & Bloomfield, LLP

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DISCHARGE STAKEHOLDER; REQUEST TO DISTRIBUTE FUDS

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Rice & Bloomfield, LLP’s request to be discharged from liability and request for costs of $967.16 to be distributed from the interpleaded funds is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request to distribute the interpleaded funds is also GRANTED. Surplus interpleaded funds of $10,180.17 are to be distributed to Defendant David Nakamura by check payable to “Law Offices of Keith Krupka Attorney-Client Trust Account and David Nakamura” pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) N/A

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) N/A

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

OPPOSITION: None filed as of November 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of November 30, 2020 [ ] Late [X] Non

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Rice & Bloomfield, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint in interpleader against Defendants David Nakamura (“Nakamura”), Gary E. Brazina, M.D., Inc. (“Brazina”), Playa Advanced Surgical Institute, LLC (“Playa Advanced”), Dr. Brigitte Rozenberg Chiropractic, Inc. (“Rozenberg”), Sunmin Park Acupuncture (“Sunmin Park”), and Beverly Hills Pain Institute and Neurology (“BH Pain Institute”).

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff deposited funds of $9,814.00 with the Court, and on July 2, 2018, it deposited an additional $1,333.33. Currently, there is a total of $11,147.33 on deposit with the Court.

Default was entered as to Defendant Playa Advanced on September 20, 2018, as to Defendants Brazina, Rozenberg, and Sunmin Park on March 19, 2019, and as to Defendant BH Pain Institute on May 10, 2019. No proof of service as to Defendant Nakamura was filed. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 28, 2018.

A non-jury trial was scheduled for December 11, 2019. During the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court she would be taking the necessary steps to have the funds on deposit with the Court disbursed. (12/11/19 Minute Order.) The Court placed the trial off calendar and set an OSC re Status of Disbursement of Interplead Funds for June 30, 2020 at 10:30 a.m., which was thereafter continued to October 21, 2020 on the Court’s own motion. (Id.; 4/28/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.)

On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Distribute Interplead Funds (the “Motion”). At the initial September 29, 2020 hearing, the Court found that Defendant Nakamura had not been served with this Motion. (9/29/20 Minute Order.) The Court also noted that Plaintiff had represented Defendant Nakamura in the underlying personal injury action that gave rise to this interpleader action, and that it was unclear whether Plaintiff continued to represent him. (Id.) In addition, the Court ordered Plaintiff to file supplemental papers explaining the propriety of keeping a portion of the surplus funds rather than depositing them in its entirety given that multiple parties claimed a portion of those funds. (Id.)

On November 9, 2020, Defendant Nakamura filed an answer. That same day, Plaintiff filed a stipulation between it and Defendant Nakamura.

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. (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.)

  1. Discussion

This action arises from an injury suffered by Defendant Nakamura on May 27, 2017. (FAC, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff represented Defendant Nakamura in the personal injury incident. (See id. at ¶ 10.) On January 31, 2018, Defendant Nakamura’s uninsured motorist carrier agreed to pay its policy limits of $17,000 for the injuries Defendant Nakamura sustained. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff claims a right to $5,852.67 of the $17,000 funds pursuant to a retainer agreement executed by Defendant Nakamura. (Id. at ¶ 10.) The $5,852.67 funds are currently being held by Plaintiff in a trust account. (Id.) Plaintiff deposited the remaining $11,147.33 with the Court.

All potential claimants have either filed an answer or have defaulted after being served. The subject matter of this action are interpleaded funds of $11,147.33. (Mot., Bloomfield Decl., ¶ 9.) Plaintiff states it received competing claims that exceeded the amount of interpleaded funds, and that it could not resolve the dispute in a mutually agreeable manner. (Mot., p. 5:13-15, Bloomfield Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff presents evidence that Defendants Brazina, Rozenberg, and Sunmin Park agreed to have their default entered with the understanding that Defendant Nakamura would honor a reduced lien of $422.50, $1,566.50, and $1,449.50, respectively. (Id. at ¶¶ 6-8, Exhs. 1, 2.)

On November 9, 2020, Plaintiff filed a Stipulation to have Judgment Entered and Distribute Funds (the “Stipulation”) whereby Plaintiff and Defendant Nakamura agreed that Plaintiff is entitled to $5,852.67 for fees and costs associated with the underlying personal injury case, that Plaintiff is entitled to $967.16 in costs associated with this interpleader action to be deducted from the interpleaded funds, and that the remaining balance of $10,180.17 should be disbursed to Defendant Nakamura through his counsel of record, Law Office of Keith M. Krupka. (11/9/20 Stipulation, ¶¶ 6-9.) Plaintiff does not seek any attorney’s fees in connection with this interpleader action. (Mot. p. 5:23-25.)

Based on the above, Plaintiff’s request to be discharged from liability and request for costs of $967.16 are GRANTED. In addition, its request to distribute the interpleaded funds is GRANTED. Surplus funds of $10,180.17 are to be distributed to Defendant David Nakamura by check payable to “Law Offices of Keith Krupka Attorney-Client Trust Account and David Nakamura” pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Rice & Bloomfield, LLP’s request to be discharged from liability and request for costs of $967.16 to be distributed from the interpleaded funds is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s request to distribute the interpleaded funds is also GRANTED. Surplus interpleaded funds of $10,180.17 are to be distributed to Defendant David Nakamura by check payable to “Law Offices of Keith Krupka Attorney-Client Trust Account and David Nakamura” pursuant to the parties’ Stipulation.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC08397    Hearing Date: September 29, 2020    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Tue., September 29, 2020 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Rice & Bloomfield, LLP v. Nakamura, et al. COMPL. FILED: 06-03-18

CASE NUMBER: 18STLC08397 DISC. C/O: NONE

NOTICE: NO DISC. MOT. C/O: NONE

TRIAL DATE: NONE

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO DISTRIBUTE INTERPLEADED FUNDS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Rice & Bloomfield, LLP

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO DISCHARGE STAKEHOLDER; REQUEST TO DISTRIBUTE FUDS

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Rice & Bloomfield, LLP’s Motion to Distribute Interpleaded Funds is CONTINUED TO NOV 12, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental briefing addressing the Court’s concerns as noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[ ] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) NO

[ ] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) NO

[ ] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) NO

OPPOSITION: None filed as of September 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of September 25, 2020 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

  1. Background

On June 13, 2018, Plaintiff Rice & Bloomfield, LLP (“Plaintiff”) filed this complaint in interpleader against Defendants David Nakamura (“Nakamura”), Gary E. Brazina, M.D., Inc. (“Brazina”), Playa Advanced Surgical Institute, LLC (“Playa Advanced”), Dr. Brigitte Rozenberg Chiropractic, Inc. (“Rozenberg”), Sunmin Park Acupuncture (“Sunmin Park”), and Beverly Hills Pain Institute and Neurology (“BH Pain Institute”).

On June 14, 2018, Plaintiff deposited funds of $9,814.00 with the Court, and on July 2, 2018, it deposited an additional $1,333.33. Currently, there is a total of $11,147.33 on deposit with the Court.

Default was entered as to Defendant Playa Advanced on September 20, 2018, as to Defendants Brazina, Rozenberg, and Sunmin Park on March 19, 2019, and as to Defendant BH Pain Institute on May 10, 2019. No proof of service as to Defendant Nakamura has been filed. Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on June 28, 2018.

A non-jury trial was scheduled for December 11, 2019. During the hearing, Plaintiff’s counsel informed the Court she would be taking the necessary steps to have the funds on deposit with the Court disbursed. (12/11/19 Minute Order.) The Court placed the trial off calendar and set an OSC re Status of Disbursement of Interplead Funds for June 30, 2020 at 10:30 a.m., which was thereafter continued to October 21, 2020 on the Court’s own motion. (Id.; 4/28/20 Notice re Continuance of Hearing and Order.)

On July 1, 2020, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Distribute Interplead Funds (the “Motion”). Plaintiff did not serve any Defendant with this Motion, reasoning that “no parties have appeared” in the action.

  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.)

  1. Discussion

This action arises from an injury suffered by Defendant Nakamura on May 27, 2017. (FAC, ¶ 6.) Plaintiff represented Defendant Nakamura in the personal injury incident. (See id. at ¶ 10.) On January 31, 2018, Defendant Nakamura’s uninsured motorist carrier agreed to pay its policy limits of $17,000 for the injuries Defendant Nakamura sustained. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Plaintiff claims a right to $5,852.67 of the $17,000 funds pursuant to a retainer agreement executed by Defendant Nakamura. (Id. at ¶ 10.) The $5,852.67 funds are currently being held in a trust account. (Id.) Plaintiff deposited the remaining $11,147.33 with the Court. Defendants Brazina, Playa Advanced, Rozenberg, Sunmin Park, and BH Pain Institute all provided medical services to Defendant Nakamura. (Id. at ¶ 11.) The medical bills for these medical services exceeded $11,147.33. (Id.) In its Complaint, Plaintiff states it was unable to determine “how much, after deduction of its attorney’s fees and costs in the Underlying Action, [the] Defendants should be paid.” (Id. at ¶ 13.)

Plaintiff seeks to be discharged from liability and to have the remaining funds distributed to it and Defendant Nakamura so that the funds may be distributed as agreed to by the parties. (Mot., p. 6:4-16.) Plaintiff provides declarations demonstrating that Defendant Brazina agreed to accept $422.50 as payment in full for its lien, and that Defendant Rozenberg, on behalf of Defendant Sunmin Park, agreed to accept $1,449.50 as payment in full for its lien for the medical services rendered to Defendant Nakamura. (Mot., Bloomfield Decl., ¶¶ 6, 7; Gary E. Brazina, M.D. Decl., ¶ 2.; Brigitte Rozenberg, D.C. Decl., ¶ 2.)

First, it is unclear to the Court whether Plaintiff continues representing Defendant Nakamura. Defendant Nakamura was not served with the instant action, suggesting that he continues to be Plaintiff’s client. In any case, Plaintiff is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers discussing the propriety of naming its former or current client as a defendant in this interpleader action. In addition, the Court notes that Plaintiff first deducted $5,852.67, the funds it claimed a right to, and then deposited the rest with the Court. Partial interpleader, where the obligor admits some liability but makes partial claims or asserts a partial interest, is permitted. (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1123.) However, instead of depositing the entirety of the $17,000.00 funds, Plaintiff first deducted the amount it claims it was entitled to. In its supplemental papers, Plaintiff should also discuss why it was proper to deposit only $11,147.73 rather than the entire $17,000.00 funds, minus any permissible attorney’s fees incurred in bringing this interpleader action.

  1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Rice & Bloomfield, LLP’s Motion to Distribute Interpleaded Funds is CONTINUED TO NOV 12, 2020 at 10:30 a.m. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file supplemental briefing addressing the Court’s concerns as noted herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.

related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where PLAYA ADVANCE SURGICAL INSTITUTE LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where BEVERLY HILLS PHYSICIANS A BUSINESS ENTITY is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer KRUPKA KEITH MICHAEL