This case was last updated from Los Angeles County Superior Courts on 08/04/2020 at 04:42:34 (UTC).

WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY VS DANIEL SNYDER, ET AL.

Case Summary

On 09/28/2018 WESCO INSURANCE COMPANY filed a Contract - Other Contract lawsuit against DANIEL SNYDER. 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 Pending - Other Pending.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    *******2265

  • Filing Date:

    09/28/2018

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • 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

Defendants

CORZANTES ENRIQUE

ARYA SIDDARTH

SNYDER DANIEL DBA DANIEL LESTER SNYDER

KIM VICTOR

CHUNG YURI

KIM AN INDIVIDUAL VICTOR

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

SOSA CARLOS EDUARDO

Attorney at Hausman & Sosa LLP

20750 Ventura Blvd Ste 105

Woodland Hills, CA 91364

Defendant Attorneys

GUERIN REGIS ANDREW

Attorney at The Guerin Law Firm, APC

4667 Macarthur Blvd Ste 300

Newport Beach, CA 92660

CARLTON ANDREW

23792 Rockfield Blvd., Suite 101

Lake Forest, CA 92630

 

Court Documents

Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continued Trial

4/15/2020: Notice (name extension) - Notice of Continued Trial

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

2/11/2020: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder)

2/6/2020: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder)

Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder)

11/21/2019: Minute Order - Minute Order (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder)

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder) of 09/24/2019

9/24/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for (Hearing on Motion - Other Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder) of 09/24/2019

Notice (name extension) - Notice Amended Notice of Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder

9/11/2019: Notice (name extension) - Notice Amended Notice of Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder

Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

5/7/2019: Notice of Settlement - Notice of Settlement

Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

6/4/2019: Proof of Service by Mail - Proof of Service by Mail

Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

12/19/2018: Request for Dismissal - Request for Dismissal

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

4/4/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

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

4/30/2019: Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name) - Amendment to Complaint (Fictitious/Incorrect Name)

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

5/7/2019: Motion re: (name extension) - Motion re: Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder

Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 01/08/2019

1/8/2019: Certificate of Mailing for - Certificate of Mailing for Minute Order (Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment) of 01/08/2019

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

10/23/2018: Proof of Service by Substituted Service - Proof of Service by Substituted Service

Civil Case Cover Sheet

9/28/2018: Civil Case Cover Sheet

Complaint

9/28/2018: Complaint

Summons - on Complaint

9/28/2018: Summons - on Complaint

Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

9/28/2018: Notice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case

27 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/01/2021
  • Hearing10/01/2021 at 10:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Order to Show Cause Re: Failure to File Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 12/10/2020
  • Hearing12/10/2020 at 08:30 AM in Department 26 at 312 North Spring Street, Los Angeles, CA 90012; Non-Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/18/2020
  • DocketRETURNED MAIL; Filed by: Clerk; As to: Enrique Corzantes (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continued Trial; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketVictor Kim , an individual (Defendant) Removed - Stricken 04/22/2020

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2020
  • DocketReset - Court Unavailable, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 05/19/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Rescheduled by Court was rescheduled to 12/10/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/15/2020
  • DocketNotice of Continued Trial; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • DocketNotice Re: Continuance of Hearing and Order; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2020
  • DocketOn the Court's own motion, Non-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Spring Street Courthouse at Department 26 Not Held - Continued - Court's Motion was rescheduled to 05/19/2020 08:30 AM

    Read MoreRead Less
42 More Docket Entries
  • 10/26/2018
  • DocketAnswer; Filed by: Siddarth Arya (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2018
  • DocketProof of Service by Substituted Service; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Daniel Snyder (Defendant); Proof of Mailing Date: 10/09/18; Service Cost: 65.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/23/2018
  • DocketProof of Personal Service; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Enrique Corzantes (Defendant); Service Date: 10/06/18; Service Cost: 85.00; Service Cost Waived: No

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketComplaint; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company (Plaintiff); As to: Daniel Snyder (Defendant); Enrique Corzantes (Defendant); Siddarth Arya (Defendant)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketCivil Case Cover Sheet; Filed by: Wesco Insurance Company (Plaintiff)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketSummons on Complaint; Issued and Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketNotice of Case Assignment - Limited Civil Case; Filed by: Clerk

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketCase assigned to Hon. Wendy Chang in Department 94 Stanley Mosk Courthouse

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketNon-Jury Trial scheduled for 03/27/2020 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/28/2018
  • DocketOrder to Show Cause - Failure to File Proof of Service scheduled for 10/01/2021 at 08:30 AM in Stanley Mosk Courthouse at Department 94

    Read MoreRead Less

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 18STLC12265    Hearing Date: February 06, 2020    Dept: 26

Wesco v. Snyder, et al.

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

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, and for Attorney’s Fees is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

ANALYSIS:

On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action for interpleader and indemnity against Defendants Siddarth Arya (“Defendant Arya”) and Daniel Snyder dba Daniel Lester Snyder (“Defendant Snyder”). This action arose from a dispute over Bond No. 04-WB050381 (the “Bond”) in the penal sum of $15,000 for homeowner claimants or $7,500 for non-homeowner claimants. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 25.) Pursuant to the Application and Indemnity Agreement, Snyder agreed to indemnify Plaintiff in exchange for the issuance of the Bond. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Plaintiff then filed two Amendments to the Complaint naming Does 21 and 22 as Victor Kim (“Defendat Kim”) and Yuri Chung (“Defendant Chung”), respectively. Defendant Enrique Corzantes was dismissed from this action on December 24, 2018.

On May 7, 2019, Defendant Arya filed a Notice of Settlement with Defendant Siddarth. Plaintiff concurrently filed the instant Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, and for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). Snyder filed an Opposition to the Motion on September 11, 2019 and Plaintiff replied on September 17, 2019.

The Motion initially came for hearing on November 26, 2019, at which time the Court declined to adopt its tentative ruling and continued the matter to February 6, 2020.

Discussion

Authority to Grant the Motion

In his opposition, Snyder argues that Plaintiff has no standing to bring the Motion because under Code of Civil Procedure section 386.5, only a defendant may seek relief for money wrongfully withheld. (Opp. p. 2.) Snyder misunderstands the legal grounds for the Motion. Plaintiff specifically cites to Code of Civil Procedure section 386 as authority allowing it to deposit the interpleaded funds. Section 386, subdivision (b) specifically allows “[a]ny person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, subd. b (emphasis added).) Therefore, Plaintiff has standing to bring the instant Motion to Deposit the interpleaded funds.

Right to Interplead Funds

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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel declares: “It is [Plaintiff’s] position that it does not know and cannot determine the respective merits of the remaining claimants which are conflicting claims against the subject bond.” (Motion, Pagan Decl., ¶ 8.) In opposition, Defendant Snyder argues that there are no conflicting claims because Defendant Arya’s claim against the Bond was resolved pursuant to a notice of settlement filed on May 7, 2019. (Oppo. p. 2.) Even if this is so, the other named Defendants, Kim and Chung, have made conflicting claims on the Bond, which have not been resolved. (Pagan Decl. ¶ 4.) To the extent Defendant Snyder contends that he is in litigation with Defendants Kim and Chung in Orange County Superior Court, that matter has not yet been resolved. For this reason, Plaintiff has a legal basis to interplead the funds from the Bond under Code of Civil Procedure section 386, subdivision (b).

Preliminary Injunction

Plaintiff also moves for a preliminary injunction against any further litigation regarding the bond funds pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 386, subdivision (f), which states:

“After any such complaint or cross-complaint in interpleader has been filed, the court in which it is filed may enter its 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). ) “Although the language of the statute is discretionary, the discretion which a trial court enjoys is not unlimited. In the instant case, petitioner has made more than a prima facie showing of the need for injunctive relief. Petitioner has shown an actual, not merely a hypothetical, danger of a multiplicity of suits. The unnecessary filing of multiple suits will inconvenience not only petitioner, but the judicial system as well. Real parties have not come forward with any explanation whatever of why the pending interpleader action is inadequate to preserve their rights to the funds in question or how they would be damaged if the preliminary injunction issued. Under these circumstances it was an abuse of discretion for respondent to deny petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction.” (Department of Education v. Superior Court (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 977, 979.)

Based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, the Court finds that there is a danger of a multiplicity of suits, and that the filing of multiple suits will be inconvenient for Plaintiff and the judicial system. (See Motin, Pagan Decl.) Neither Defendant Snyder nor any other Claimants argue that this interpleader action is inadequate and that a separate action by each of the Claimants is necessary to preserve their rights to the funds. The Court discerns no reason how Claimants would be damaged if the preliminary injunction were issued. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction under is GRANTED: all parties to this action are hereby restraint “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.”

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6, subdivision (a) states: “[a] party to an action who follows the procedure set forth in Section 386 or 386.5 may insert in his motion, petition, complaint, or cross complaint a request for allowance of his costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in such action. In ordering the discharge of such party, the court may, in its discretion, award such party his costs and reasonable attorney fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court. At the time of final judgment in the action the court may make such further provision for assumption of such costs and attorney fees by one or more of the adverse claimants as may appear proper.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.6, subd. (a) (emphasis added).)

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $2,000. (Motion, Pagan Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10.) Having reviewed the facts and evidence Plaintiff submitted in support of its request for attorney’s fees and costs, the Court finds $667 in costs and $1,333 in attorney’s fees to be reasonable and awards Plaintiff such amount.

Conclusion

In light of the foregoing, the Motion is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $667 in costs and $1,333 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff is ordered to deposit the funds of $13,000 ($15,000 - $2,000) within ten (30) days from the date of this Order as a CONDITION for granting this Motion.

Trial remains set for March 27, 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 26 in the Spring Street Courthouse.

Moving party to give notice.

Case Number: 18STLC12265    Hearing Date: November 21, 2019    Dept: 94

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

(CCP §§ 386, 386.5)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company’s Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, and for Attorney’s Fees is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED.

OPPOSITION: Filed on Sept. 11, 2019 [ ] Late [ ] None

REPLY: Filed on Sept. 17, 2019 [ ] Late [ ] None

ANALYSIS:

I. Background

On September 28, 2018, Plaintiff Wesco Insurance Company (“Plaintiff”) initiated this action for interpleader and indemnity against Defendants Siddarth Arya (“Arya”) and Daniel Snyder dba Daniel Lester Snyder (“Snyder”). Plaintiff then filed two Amendments to the Complaint naming Doe 21 and 22 as Victor Kim (“Kim”) and Yuri Chung (“Chung”), respectively. Former Defendant Enrique Corzantes was dismissed from this action on December 24, 2018.

This action arose from a dispute over Bond No. 04-WB050381 (the “Bond”) in the penal sum of $15,000 for homeowner claimants or $7,500 for non-homeowner claimants. (Compl. ¶¶ 7, 25.) Pursuant to the Application and Indemnity Agreement, Snyder agreed to indemnify Plaintiff in exchange for the issuance of the Bond. (Id. ¶ 6.)

On May 7, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Deposit by Stakeholder, for Discharge of Stakeholder, and for Attorney’s Fees (the “Motion”). Snyder filed an Opposition on September 11, and Plaintiff replied on September 17.

II. Discussion

A. Plaintiff’s Standing

In opposition, Snyder argues (in essence) that Plaintiff has no standing to bring the Motion because under CCP § 386.5, only a defendant may seek relief for money wrongfully withheld. (Oppo. p. 2.) Snyder misunderstands the legal grounds for the Motion. Plaintiff specifically cites to CCP § 386—not § 386.5—as authority allowing it to deposit the interpleaded funds, and Section 386(b) specifically allows “[a]ny person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom double or multiple claims are made, or may be made, by two or more persons which are such that they may give rise to double or multiple liability, may bring an action against the claimants to compel them to interplead and litigate their several claims.” (Emphasis added.) Thus, Plaintiff has standing to bring the instant Motion to deposit the interpleaded funds.

B. Plaintiff’s Right to Interplead Funds

Under CCP § 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.)

Plaintiff’s counsel states: “It is [Plaintiff’s] position that it does not know and cannot determine the respective merits of the remaining claimants which are conflicting claims against the subject bond . . . .” (Pagan Decl. ¶ 8.) In opposition, Snyder argues that there are no conflicting claims because Arya’s claim against the Bond was resolved with him pursuant to a notice of settlement filed on May 7. (Oppo. p. 2.) Even if this is so, the other named Defendants, Kim and Chung, have made conflicting claims on the Bond, which have not been resolved. (Pagan Decl. ¶ 4.) For this reason, Plaintiff has a legal basis to interplead the funds from the Bond under CCP § 386(b).

C. Preliminary Injunction (CCP § 386(f))

CCP § 386(f) states:

“After any such complaint or cross-complaint in interpleader has been filed, the court in which it is filed may enter its 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.”

“Although the language of the statute is discretionary, the discretion which a trial court enjoys is not unlimited. In the instant case, petitioner has made more than a prima facie showing of the need for injunctive relief. Petitioner has shown an actual, not merely a hypothetical, danger of a multiplicity of suits. The unnecessary filing of multiple suits will inconvenience not only petitioner, but the judicial system as well. Real parties have not come forward with any explanation whatever of why the pending interpleader action is inadequate to preserve their rights to the funds in question or how they would be damaged if the preliminary injunction issued. Under these circumstances it was an abuse of discretion for respondent to deny petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction.” (Department of Education v. Superior Court (1979) 97 Cal.App.3d 977, 979.)

Based on Plaintiff’s counsel’s declaration, the Court finds that there is a danger of a multiplicity of suits, and that the filing of multiple suits will be inconvenient for Plaintiff and the judicial system. (See Pagan Decl.) Neither Snyder nor any other Claimants argue that interpleader action is inadequate and that separate action by each of the Claimants is necessary to preserve their rights to the funds. The Court discerns no reason how Claimants would be damaged if the preliminary injunction were issued. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for preliminary injunction under CCP § 386(f) is GRANTED: all parties to this action are hereby restraint “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.”

D. Attorney’s Fees and Costs (CCP § 386.6(a))

CCP § 386.6(a) states: “[a] party to an action who follows the procedure set forth in Section 386 or 386.5 may insert in his motion, petition, complaint, or cross complaint a request for allowance of his costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred in such action. In ordering the discharge of such party, the court may, in its discretion, award such party his costs and reasonable attorney fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court. At the time of final judgment in the action the court may make such further provision for assumption of such costs and attorney fees by one or more of the adverse claimants as may appear proper.” (Emphasis added.)

Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees and costs in the amount of $2,000. (Pagan Decl. ¶¶ 6, 10.) Having reviewed the facts and evidence Plaintiff submitted in support of its request for attorney’s fees and costs, the Court finds $667 in costs and $1,333 in attorney’s fees to be reasonable and awards Plaintiff such amount.

III. Conclusion & Order

In light of the foregoing, the Motion is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED. Plaintiff is awarded $667 in costs and $1,333 in attorney’s fees. Plaintiff is ordered to deposit the funds of $13,000 ($15,000 - $2,000) within ten (10) days from the date of this Order as a CONDITION for granting this Motion.

Trial remains set for March 27, 2020 at 8:30 am in Department 94.

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCdept94@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.