Fee Entitlement Was Grounded In CCP § 386.6(a), With No Real Objection To The Fee Work. In Barrett Daffin Frappier Treder & Weiss v. Garau, Case No. B315960 (2d Dist., Div. 1 Jan. 30, 2024) (unpublished), non-judicial foreclosure trustee was awarded fees of $71,777.80 for bringing an interpleader action to resolve how excess surplus […]
Defendant In An Interpleader Action Cannot Be The Prevailing Party As To The Interpleader Because There Are No True Adverse Interests, And Claims Of Collusion Between Between Interpleader And Other Defendant Must Be Made During Initial Phase Of Proceeding. In Grupo Deco California v. Downs, Case Nos. B305748/B308965 (2d Dist., Div. 7 October 17,
Interpleading Party Held And Managed The Bond Portfolio Under An Unusual Loan Agreement. CCP § 386.6(a) allows a court discretion to award costs and reasonable attorney’s fees to an interpleading party obtaining a discharge. Because this is an equity-driven decision-making process (Hood v. Gonzales, 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 71 (2019)), the abuse of discretion standard
Once Interpleader Found Necessary, Interpleader Losing Party Had To Bear Costs/Fees. In Eskenazi v. 301 Culver, LLC, Case No. B302398 (2d Dist., Div. 7 Aug. 16, 2021) (unpublished), a settlement agreement was in controversy, with one party filing an interpleader action relating to contested settlement funds at issue. Eventually, the interpleading party prevailed and
Even Though Award Larger Than Most Interpleader Fee Awards, No Abuse Of Discretion In Denying $83,473.09 Fee Request By Neutral Stakeholder Plaintiff. In California Apartment Properties Ltd v. Norton, Case No. B291601 (2d Dist., Div. 2 Dec. 20, 2019) (unpublished), an investment advisor—the neutral stakeholder—filed an interpleader action against ex-wife, ex-husband’s estate, and two
Code of Civil Procedure Section 697.590 governed this one. MDQ, LLC v. Gilbert, Kelly, Crowley & Jennett LLP, Case No. B283025 (2d Dist., Div. 8 February 27, 2019) (published) provides a valuable lesson in the importance of perfecting assigned security interests through the filing of a financing statement pursuant to Division 9
However, Defendants Still Lost. The facts are not really relevant for purposes of our post in Ponticelli v. Ason, Case No. B277763 (2d Dist., Div. 1 July 30, 2018) (unpublished) because the prime issue was whether defendants in an interpleader action timely filed an appeal on the merits of the discharge by appealing the
Trial Judge Correctly Dismissed Trustee’s Interpleader Complaint. In Placer Foreclosure, Inc. v. Aflalo, Case No. B268589 (2d Dist., Div. 6 May 30, 2018) (published), a foreclosure trustee foreclosed an owner’s property based on a deed of trust, with the sale resulting in surplus proceeds of $ 974,786.81. The former owner sued trustee and foreclosure buyer
Appellate Court Offered Guidance, Including That No Section 1717 Adverse Fee Award On Plaintiff’s Complaint Could Be Granted On Grounds Advanced By Lender. Plaintiff octogenarian sued her lender on various theories stemming from lender’s failure to disburse timely insurance proceeds covering a fire loss. In response to plaintiff’s Complaint, Lender filed an interpleader cross-complaint.
Scope of Interpleader Proceeding Resolved In This Case. Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery, Case No. B268298 (2d Dist., Div. 5 Nov. 14, 2016) (published) involved an interpleader action filed in the wake of a settlement agreement for injuries sustained in the 2008 Sesnon wildfire, with personal injury claimants, palimony litigants, and attorneys
