This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 11/22/2020 at 06:40:49 (UTC).

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION VS AA ASPHALT COATING, INC., A CORPORATION, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 03/26/2019 WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against AA ASPHALT COATING, INC , A CORPORATION. This case was filed in Los Angeles County Superior Courts, Spring Street Courthouse located in Los Angeles, California. The Judge overseeing this case is WENDY CHANG. The case status is Other.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2988

  • Filing Date:

    03/26/2019

  • Case Status:

    Other

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Other Contract

  • Court:

    Los Angeles County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Spring Street Courthouse

  • County, State:

    Los Angeles, California

Judge Details

Judge

WENDY CHANG

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY A CORPORATION

Defendants

SPRAGUES READY MIX AN ENTITY OF UNKNOWN ORIGIN

ALVANDIAN DANIEL

LEHMACKER BRAD

COASTLINE DESIGN & CONSTRUCTION INC. A CORPORATION

MARTINEZ NORMA AKA NORMA LETICIA MARTINEZ

PATEL PARESHKUMAR

AA ASPHALT COATING INC. A CORPORATION

RJ NOBLE COMPANY A CORPORATION

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

PAGAN JOHN

Defendant Attorney

MAY MICHAEL D

 

Court Documents

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder) of 02/24/2020

2/24/2020: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder) of 02/24/2020

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder) of 12/23/2019

12/23/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder) of 12/23/2019

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

12/30/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continuance on Motion to Deposit

Answer - Answer

9/4/2019: Answer - Answer

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

7/8/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

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

7/8/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

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

7/8/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

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

7/8/2019: Request for Entry of Default / Judgment - Request for Entry of Default / Judgment

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

7/23/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

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

8/2/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

8/6/2019: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

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

4/23/2019: Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service) - Proof of Mailing (Substituted Service)

Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence

4/23/2019: Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence

Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence

4/23/2019: Affidavit (name extension) - Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence

Summons - Summons on Complaint

3/26/2019: Summons - Summons on Complaint

Complaint - Complaint

3/26/2019: Complaint - Complaint

Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

3/26/2019: Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet

First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

3/26/2019: First Amended Standing Order - First Amended Standing Order

21 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Request for Dismissal: As To Parties: Coastline Design & Construction, Inc., a corporation (Defendant); Spragues Ready Mix, an entity of unknown origin (Defendant); Pareshkumar Patel (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal scheduled for 03/03/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/27/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/27/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/29/2022 at 10:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 10/27/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/22/2020
  • DocketOn the Complaint filed by Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation on 03/26/2019, entered Request for Dismissal without prejudice filed by Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation as to Coastline Design & Construction, Inc., a corporation, RJ Noble Company, a corporation, Spragues Ready Mix, an entity of unknown origin, Daniel Alvandian, and Pareshkumar Patel

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Vacating Trial Date; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketStipulation and Order of Distribution; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketUpdated -- Stipulation and Order of Distribution: Status changed from Filed to Signed and Filed

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Dismissal scheduled for 03/03/2021 at 09:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/02/2020
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Vacated by Court on 09/02/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/24/2020
  • DocketMinute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder)

    Read MoreRead Less
33 More Docket Entries
  • 04/23/2019
  • DocketAffidavit of Reasonable Diligence; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2019
  • DocketProof of Mailing (Substituted Service); Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: Pareshkumar Patel (Defendant); Mailing Date: 04/12/2019; Service Cost: 65.00; Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 09/22/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 03/29/2022 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/27/2019
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: AA Asphalt Coating, Inc., a corporation (Defendant); Norma Martinez (Defendant); Coastline Design & Construction, Inc., a corporation (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: AA Asphalt Coating, Inc., a corporation (Defendant); Norma Martinez (Defendant); Coastline Design & Construction, Inc., a corporation (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company, a corporation (Plaintiff); As to: AA Asphalt Coating, Inc., a corporation (Defendant); Norma Martinez (Defendant); Coastline Design & Construction, Inc., a corporation (Defendant) et al.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • DocketFirst Amended Standing Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC02988    Hearing Date: February 24, 2020    Dept: 26

Wesco Ins. Co. v. AA Asphalt Coating, Inc., et al.

MOTION TO DEPOSIT FEES, DISCHARGE LIABILITY AND RECOVER FEES

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder and for Discharge of Stakeholder is taken off calendar for failure to file evidence ordered by the Court.

ANALYSIS:

On March 26, 2019, Wesco Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for indemnity, reimbursement, and interpleader with respect to claims against a construction bond issued to Defendants AA Asphalt Coating, Inc. (“Defendant AA Asphalt”) and Norma Martinez aka Norma Leticia Martinez (“Defendant Martinez”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Coastline Design & Construction, Inc. (“Defendant Coastline”), Spragues Ready Mix (“Defendant Spragues”), Pareshkumar Patel (“Defendant Patel”), Daniel Alvandian (“Defendant Alvandian”), and Brad Lehmacker (“Defendant Lehmacker”) have made claims or filed lawsuits against the bond. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff added RJ Noble Company (“Defendant RJ Noble”) as a doe defendant alleged to be a claimant. Defendants Coastline, Spragues, Patel, and Alvandian failed to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint and the Court entered their defaults on July 8, 2019. Defendant RJ Noble filed its Answer on September 4, 2019.

On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants AA Asphalt and Martinez from the action without prejudice. Accordingly, the first and second causes of action in the Complaint for indemnity and reimbursement, respectively, have been dismissed.

Further, on February 4, 2020, the Plaintiff dismissed Brad Lehmacker from the action without prejudice.

The only cause of action that remains is for interpleader. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deposit Interpleader Funds, etc. on August 15, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

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. Ultimately, such payment may be charged to one or more of the adverse claimants in the final judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s request to be discharged from liability cannot be granted at this time because it is unclear what Plaintiff contends is the proper amount of the interpleader funds.

The Complaint alleges that the bond was issued to Defendants AA Asphalt and Martinez in the amount of $15,000.00. (Compl., ¶8.) It also alleges that due to two prior payouts on the bond in the total amount of $2,710.00, the bond has been reduced to $12,290.00. (Ibid.)

These amounts were also articulated to the claimants in a letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel on March 26, 2019. (Motion, Pagan Decl., Exh. 2.)

In the Motion, however, Plaintiff cites to Cal. Business and Professions Code section 7071.6, subdivision (b) for the proposition that its liability for non-homeowner claims is limited to $7,500.00 and contends that as a result of the two prior payouts, the bond amount has been reduced from $7,500.00 to $4,790.00. (Motion, Pagan Decl., ¶2.) It appears from the Motion that Plaintiff seeks to deposit only $4,790.00. Yet Plaintiff has not provided any basis for limiting the amount of the bond and interpleader funds based on the statutory cap for non-homeowner claims. Plaintiff offers no evidence that the claims on the bond are only by non-homeowners.

This matter was originally set for December 23, 2020. The Court issued a ruling on December 23, 2020 that identified the above defects and an addition problem with service on the Defendant, Brad Lehmacker, which problem was resolved when the Plaintiff dismissed Mr. Lehmacker on February 24, 2020.

As a result of the defects identified above, the Court continued the matter to February 24, 2020 and directed the Plaintiff to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the value of the subject bond and the amount of interpleader funds as it pertains to this action. Further, the Court stated that failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

A review of the Court file reveals that the Plaintiff did not file the required supplemental papers to address the value of the bond and the amount of interpleader funds. As a result, the Court should take the Plaintiff’s motion off calendar because the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the requirements to be discharged from liability.

Court clerk to give notice.

Case Number: 19STLC02988    Hearing Date: December 23, 2019    Dept: 94

MOTION TO DEPOSIT FEES, DISCHARGE LIABILITY AND RECOVER FEES

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder and for Discharge of Stakeholder is CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 24, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94.

ANALYSIS:

On March 26, 2019, Wesco Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) filed this action for indemnity, reimbursement, and interpleader with respect to claims against a construction bond issued to Defendants AA Asphalt Coating, Inc. (“Defendant AA Asphalt”) and Norma Martinez aka Norma Leticia Martinez (“Defendant Martinez”). Plaintiff alleges that Defendants Coastline Design & Construction, Inc. (“Defendant Coastline”), Spragues Ready Mix (“Defendant Spragues”), Pareshkumar Patel (“Defendant Patel”), Daniel Alvandian (“Defendant Alvandian”), and Brad Lehmacker (“Defendant Lehmacker”) have made claims or filed lawsuits against the bond. On July 23, 2019, Plaintiff added RJ Noble Company (“Defendant RJ Noble”) as a doe defendant alleged to be a claimant. Defendants Coastline, Spragues, Patel, and Alvandian failed to file a responsive pleading to the Complaint and the Court entered their defaults on July 8, 2019. Defendant RJ Noble filed its Answer on September 4, 2019.

On August 6, 2019, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants AA Asphalt and Martinez from the action without prejudice. Accordingly, the first and second causes of action in the Complaint for indemnity and reimbursement, respectively, have been dismissed. The only cause of action that remains is for interpleader. Plaintiff filed the instant Motion to Deposit Interpleader Funds, etc. on August 15, 2019. To date, no opposition has been filed.

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. Ultimately, such payment may be charged to one or more of the adverse claimants in the final judgment. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6.)

Discussion

Plaintiff’s request to be discharged from liability cannot be granted at this time. To date, no proof of service of the Summons and Complaint has been filed as to Defendant Lehmacker. The Court notes that on April 23, 2019, an Affidavit of Reasonable Diligence was filed regarding attempted service on Defendant Lehmacker. However, there is no matching proof of service. Until Defendant Lehmacker is provided proper service of this action, or dismissed, Plaintiff cannot be discharged from liability as to the interpleader funds.

It is also unclear to the Court what Plaintiff contends is the proper amount of the interpleader funds. The Complaint alleges that the bond was issued to Defendants AA Asphalt and Martinez in the amount of $15,000.00. (Compl., ¶8.) It also alleges that due to two prior payouts on the bond in the total amount of $2,710.00, the bond has been reduced to $12,290.00. (Ibid.) These amounts were also articulated to the claimants in a letter sent by Plaintiff’s counsel on March 26, 2019. (Motion, Pagan Decl., Exh. 2.) In the Motion, however, Plaintiff cites to Cal. Business and Professions Code section 7071.6, subdivision (b) for the proposition that its liability for non-homeowner claims is limited to $7,500.00 and contends that as a result of the two prior payouts, the bond amount has been reduced from $7,500.00 to $4,790.00. (Motion, Pagan Decl., ¶2.) It appears from the Motion that Plaintiff seeks to deposit only $4,790.00. Yet Plaintiff has not provided any basis for limiting the amount of the bond and interpleader funds based on the statutory cap for non-homeowner claims. Plaintiff offers no evidence that the claims on the bond are only by non-homeowners.

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit Interpleader Funds, for Discharge of Stakeholder, Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Temporary Restraining Order is CONTINUED TO FEBRUARY 24, 2020 AT 10:30 AM IN DEPARTMENT 94. At least 16 court days prior to the continued hearing date, Plaintiff is to file proof of service of the Summons and Complaint as to Defendant Lehmacker, or dismiss him from this action. Plaintiff is also to file and serve supplemental papers addressing the value of the subject bond and the amount of interpleader funds as it pertains to this action. Failure to comply with the Court’s orders may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Court clerk to give notice.