Case Number: BC542379    Hearing Date: September 03, 2014    Dept: 58

JUDGE ROLF M. TREU
DEPARTMENT 58
________________________________________
Hearing Date: Wednesday, September 3, 2014

Calendar No: 4
Case Name: Mercury Insurance Group, et al. v. Darpinian, et al.
Case No.: BC542379 (r/t BC537343)
Motion: Motion to Release Funds
Moving Party: Defendant Law Offices of Maro Burensuzyan
Responding Party: Defendant Steve Darpinian

Calendar No: 5
Case Name: Darpinian v. Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan, et al.
Case No.: BC537343
Motion: Demurrer
Moving Party: Defendant Law Offices of Maro Burensuzyan
Responding Party: No opposition filed

Notice: OK

Tentative Ruling: Motion to release interpleaded funds is denied. Demurrer is off-calendar.
________________________________________

On 2/24/14, Plaintiff Steven Darpinian filed an action (BC537343) against Defendants Law Offices of Maro Burunsuzyan, APLC, and Maro Burunsuzyan (collectively (“Burunsuzyan”) arising out of the provision of legal services in BC434784 (“Underlying Action”). Darpinian asserts causes of action for (1) general negligence, (2) fraud, and (3) breach of contract.

On 4/10/14, Mercury Insurance Group and Carol Freitas filed an interpleader action (BC542379) against Darpinian and Burunsuzyan arising out of a dispute as to entitlement to the funds to be paid on the judgment in the Underlying Action.

On 5/8/14, the Court found the two actions related. On 6/17/14, Burunsuzyan filed a demurrer in BC537343. On 7/14/14, Burunsuzyan filed a motion seeking the release of the interpleaded funds in BC542379. On 8/27/14, Darpinian filed a First Amended Complaint in BC537343.

Motion to Release Funds –
Burunsuzyan submits that they are entitled to the interplead funds pursuant to their retainer agreement for the provision of legal services in the Underlying Action. See Burunsuzyan Decl. ¶¶ 3-9. In opposition, Darpinian asserts that Burunsuzyan failed to perform its legal services competently.

Burunsuzyan has failed to cite to any authority that authorizes the Court to make the ultimate determination of entitlement to the interpleaded funds through this motion. See Shopoff & Cavallo LLP v. Hyon (2008) 167 Cal.App.4th 1489, 1514. Indeed, Burunsuzyan’s claim as to the interpleaded funds should be presented in a motion for summary judgment. See City of Morgan Hill v. Brown (1999) 71 Cal.App.4th 1114, 1128. Therefore, the motion is dined. CRC 3.1113(b).

Demurrer –
In light of the filing of the FAC in BC537343, Burunsuzyan’s demurrer is off-calendar.