Case Number: 12K10961    Hearing Date: August 01, 2014    Dept: 32

CASE NAME: City of Los Angeles v. Nettie Corbin
CASE NO.: 12K10961
HEARING DATE: 08/01/14
DEPARTMENT: 32
CALENDAR NO.: 9
SUBJECT: Motion for Discharging Plaintiff City of Los Angeles from Liability and Request for Dismissal
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff City of Los Angeles
RESP. PARTY: None

COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING

Motion for Discharging Plaintiff City of Los Angeles from Liability and Request for Dismissal GRANTED, subject to confirmation that the $15,000 check has been deposited with the court.

ANALYSIS

This is an interpleader action in which the moving party has asserted that it has deposited the funds with the court. “Where the only relief sought against one of the defendants is the payment of a stated amount of money alleged to be wrongfully withheld, such defendant may, upon affidavit that he is a mere stakeholder with no interest in the amount or any portion thereof and that conflicting demands have been made upon him for the amount by parties to the action, upon notice to such parties, apply to the court for an order discharging him from liability and dismissing him from the action on his depositing with the clerk of the court the amount in dispute and the court may, in its discretion, make such order.” (CCP § 386.5; see also Rutter Guide, Civ. Pro. Before Trial ¶ 2:489.)

Plaintiff’s counsel submits a declaration in support of the motion in which she authenticates relevant documents establishing the procedural and factual history of this interpleader action. Of particular note, counsel authenticates attorney Luti and Wilson’s notice of lien; the judgment entered on February 2, 2011 against Plaintiff for $15,000; and an email from Wilson indicating that he would not provide a W-9 form to Plaintiff for a settlement check and that Plaintiff should interplead the funds. (Minassian Decl. Exh. 1, 4, 5.) Plaintiff’s counsel also authenticates a copy of a check payable to the “Clerk of the Superior Court” for $15,000 dated July 18, 2012. (Id. Exh. 6.)

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff has met its initial burden of showing that it is a mere stakeholder with no interest in the $15,000 settlement funds at issue. It appears from the papers that the $15,000 was deposited with the court at the same time the interpleader action was filed on July 20, 2012. No opposition has been received from Defendants to show any reason why Plaintiff should remain part of the litigation. However, the court has not located any notice of deposit in the court file.

The motion is GRANTED subject to confirmation that the $ 15,000 has in fact been deposited with the court.