STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS BRIAN SIGGERS, ET AL.

Cross-Complainant U-Haul Co. of California’s Motion to Deposit, Discharge of Liability and Award of Costs is GRANTED and UHCA is awarded $947.17 in costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386.5, 386, subd. (f).) A hearing to determine the disposition of funds is set for December 10, 2020 at 9:00 am in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. Each claimant must file a written claim within 30 days of this order; the written claim should include a declaration setting forth the basis for the claim of ownership or interest. All claimants must also personally appear at the disbursement hearing. If no claims or appearances are made, the matter will be set for an OSC re: Escheating Funds. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128; Govt. Code, § 68084.1.)

Cross-Complainant U-Haul Co. of California is ordered to give notice of this order and the disbursement hearing on all parties, claimants and interested parties. Upon filing of the proof of service of the notice of disbursement hearing, Cross-Complainant U-Haul Co. of California shall be discharged of further responsibility for the disputed funds.TRIAL REMAINS SET FOR MARCH 26, 2021 AT 08:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. ANALYSIS:

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).)

Discussion

UHCA moves to deposit the disputed funds and for entry of a judgment of dismissal from liability on the Cross-Complaint. UHCA demonstrated that all claimants have been served with the Summons and Complaint, served with the instant motion, are in default, or were dismissed from the action. The Court also finds UHCA’s request to deposit the interpleader funds and be discharged from the interpleader cause of action to be proper. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386 and 386.5.) Under Code of Civil Procedure section 386, “[w]hen a person may be subject to conflicting claims for money or property, the person may bring an interpleader action to compel the claimants to litigate their claims among themselves.” (City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1122.) “‘‘The purpose of interpleader is to prevent a multiplicity of suits and double vexation. [Citation.] ‘The right to the remedy by interpleader is founded, however, not on the consideration that a [person] may be subjected to double liability, but on the fact that he is threatened with double vexation in respect to one liability.’ [Citation.]’ [Citation.]” (Southern California Gas Company v. Flannery (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 477, 487.) In fact, there is no requirement that an interpleader plaintiff bring a motion or obtain an order prior to depositing the funds. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (c).)

The subject matter of the Cross-Complaint is UHCA’s $5,000.00 self-insurance proceeds and it has demonstrated it incurred costs of $947.17 in its cross-action. (Motion, Lapidus Decl., ¶7 and Exh. F.) Accordingly, the Court also issues an order restraining all parties to the action from instituting or continuing to prosecute any other proceeding in any court in this state that would affect the parties’ rights and obligations as to the funds until further order of the Court. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. (f).)

Based on the foregoing, Cross-Complainant U-Haul Co. of California’s Motion to Deposit, Discharge of Liability and Award of Costs is GRANTED and UHCA is awarded $947.17 in costs. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 386.5, 386, subd. (f).) A hearing to determine the disposition of funds is set for December 10, 2020 at 9:00 am in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse. Each claimant must file a written claim within 30 days of this order; the written claim should include a declaration setting forth the basis for the claim of ownership or interest. All claimants must also personally appear at the disbursement hearing. If no claims or appearances are made, the matter will be set for an OSC re: Escheating Funds. (Code Civ. Proc., § 128; Govt. Code, § 68084.1.)

Cross-Complainant U-Haul Co. of California is ordered to give notice of this order and the disbursement hearing on all parties, claimants and interested parties. Upon filing of the proof of service of the notice of disbursement hearing, Cross-Complainant U-Haul Co. of California shall be discharged of further responsibility for the disputed funds.

TRIAL REMAINS SET FOR MARCH 26, 2021 AT 08:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 26 IN THE SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE.

Moving party to give notice.