| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Date |
|---|
Motion for Order of Discharge, Award of Costs and Attorney’s Fees, for Deposit, and for Dismissal
VEHICLE in accordance with the Song Beverly Consumer Warranty Act? If so, please describe in detail all facts upon which YOU rely upon for this contention.” (Pl. SS, at p. 23.) In response, Defendant objects on the ground that the interrogatory seeks trade secret information. (Pl. SS, at p. 24.) Defendant also provides the following response: “Subject to and without waiving its objections, GM states that it is informed and believes that verifiable concerns were resolved, and the SUBJECT VEHICLE has been adequately repaired within a reasonable number of repair attempts. To the extent that Plaintiff or a non-GM authorized facility caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns or to the extent Plaintiff’s failure to properly maintain the SUBJECT VEHICLE caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s concerns, such concerns are not covered under the warranty. Furthermore, all approved warranty claims submitted by a GM-authorized repair facility for repairs performed to the SUBJECT VEHICLE were paid by GM, and at no cost to Plaintiff. GM evaluates each case in good faith in accordance with the provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Civ. Code §1794 et. seq.).” (Ibid.) For the reasons noted above, the Court finds that trade secret does not relieve Defendant of the obligation to fully respond to Special Interrogatory No.
12. The interrogatory seeks to confirm a contention and seeks facts on which that contention is based. Responding to the interrogatory does not require the production of entire documents or communications that include sensitive information. Nevertheless, the Court finds that the response adequately addresses Plaintiff’s inquiry. Defendant’s assertion that all verifiable concerns with the Subject Vehicle were resolved and the Subject Vehicle adequately repaired within a reasonable number of attempts infers an affirmative answer to the question of whether it contends that it is not obligated to repurchase the Subject Vehicle. It can be reasonably understood that the fact on which the contention is based is that all verifiable concerns were resolved. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks further information regarding what number of attempts is reasonable or details about the repair history of the Subject Vehicle, the Court herein already compels response to those inquiries. The Court thus DENIES the Motion as to Special Interrogatory No.
12. CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS IN PART Plaintiff Paul Cottrell’s Motion to Compel Further Response to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One). Defendant General Motors, LLC is ordered to serve further responses to Plaintiff’s Special Interrogatories (Set One), Nos. 3, 5-9, and 11 within 30 days. Moving party to give notice.
Extracted by Gemini Flash from the ruling text. Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Powered by Gemini Flash Lite. Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.
Dept. F49 Date: 5/18/26 Case Name: Joshua D. Butler vs. Green Home Systems, Inc. d.b.a. Green Commercial Systems; American Contractors Indemnity Company; The North River Insurance Company; and Does 1-100
Case No. 25CHCV00410 LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT DEPARTMENT F49 MAY 18, 2026 MOTION FOR ORDER OF DISCHARGE, AWARD OF COSTS AND ATTORNEY?S FEES, FOR DEPOSIT, AND FOR DISMISSAL Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 25CHCV00410 Motion filed: 1/15/26 MOVING PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant American Contractors Indemnity Company RESPONDING PARTY: Cross-Defendant Yu Chen NOTICE: OK RELIEF REQUESTED: An order from this Court: (1) discharging ACIC from liability regarding the rights and obligations to a $25,000 contractors bond it issued, (2) awarding fees and costs in the amount of $5,000 and ordering deposit of the remaining $20,000 with the Clerk of the Court, (3) restraining Cross-Defendants from instituting or further prosecuting any other proceeding for recovery against the bond, and (4) dismissing ACIC from the action without prejudice. TENTATIVE RULING: The Motion is GRANTED. BACKGROUND This breach of contract action arises from a dispute over the purchase and installation of a solar panel system. A. The Operative Complaint On February 13, 2025, Plaintiff Joshua D. Butler (“Plaintiff”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (the “FAC”) against Defendants Green Home Systems, Inc. d.b.a. Green Commercial Systems (“GCS”), American Contractors Indemnity Company (“ACIC”), The North River Insurance Company (“North River”), and Does 1 through 100, alleging the following causes of action: (1) breach of written contract, (2) cancellation of agreement? Civil Code § 1689.6, (3) rescission? Civil Code § 1689, (4) Consumer Legal Remedies Act? Civil Code § 1750, (5) violation of Unfair Competition Law, Business and Professions Code § 17200, (6) violation of False Advertising Act, Business and Professions Code § 17500, (7) unfair business acts and practices, (8) declaratory relief, (9) unjust enrichment, (10) violation of contractors’ state license law, and (11) recovery of bond. On March 23, 2025 and March 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed fictitious name amendments to the FAC, naming Robert D. Hebert (“Robert”) and Rachel Hebert (“Rachel”) as Does 1 and 2, respectively. On June 26, 2025, Plaintiff filed another amendment naming Noah Rotenberg (“Rotenberg”) as Doe 3. On October 6, 2025, Plaintiff filed an amendment naming Berry Durand (“Durand”) as Doe 4. On April 23, 2025, ACIC filed an
Answer to the FAC. That same day, ACIC filed a stipulation with Plaintiff whereby Plaintiff agreed both: (1) to dismiss ACIC from the first, second, third, eighth, and ninth causes of action, and (2) that his only claim against ACIC was against the contractor’s license bond. On June 5, 2025, North River filed an Answer to the FAC. On March 28, 2025, default was entered against GCS. On September 9, 2025, default was entered against Robert, Rachel, and Rotenberg. On December 3, 2025, default was entered against Durand. B. The Cross-Complaints On April 24, 2025, ACIC filed a Cross-Complaint for interpleader against Plaintiff, GCS, and Cross-Defendants Kunal Bhavsar (“Bhavsar”), Yu Chen (“Chen”), and Roes 1 through 50. On September 10, 2025, ACIC filed a fictitious name amendment to its Cross-Complaint, naming Anthony Tatikian (“Tatikian”) as Roe 1. On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Answer to ACIC?s Cross-Complaint. On December 2, 2025, Tatikian filed an Answer to ACIC?s Cross-Complaint. On July 28, 2025, default was entered against GCS on ACIC?s Cross-Complaint. On November 3, 2025, the clerk entered default against Bhavsar and Chen. On June 5, 2025, North River filed a Cross-Complaint in interpleader against GCS, Plaintiff, and Cross-Defendants Gerardo Anguiano (“Anguiano”), Richard Elston (“Elston”), and Moes 1 through 25. On August 1, 2025, Plaintiff filed an Answer to North River’s Cross-Complaint. On August 18, 2025, Anguiano filed an Answer to the Cross-Complaint. On August 19, 2025, at the request of North River, the Court dismissed Elston from the Cross-Complaint. On October 6, 2025, default was entered against GCS on North River’s Cross-Complaint. On October 24, 2025, the Court granted a stipulation between North River, Plaintiff, and Anguiano for North River to deposit its $25,000 GCS bond with the clerk of the Court, awarding attorney fees and costs, discharging the bond, and dismissing North River from the action without prejudice. C. The Instant Motion On January 15, 2026, ACIC filed the instant Motion for Order of Discharge, Award of Cost and Attorney’s Fees, for Deposit, and for Dismissal of American Contractors Indemnity Company (the “Motion”). On May 12, 2026, Chen filed an Opposition. On May 14, 2026, ACIC filed a Reply. ANALYSIS “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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.5.) A. Surety Liability Pursuant to Business and Professions Code section 7071.6, subdivision (a), a condition precedent to the issuance of a contractor’s license is maintaining a contractor’s bond in the amount of $25,000. The bond must be executed by an admitted surety and exists for the benefit of certain persons, including: (a) a homeowner contracting for home improvement on a personal family residence, (b) a property owner contracting for the construction of a single-family dwelling, (c) a person damaged by willful and deliberate violation by the licensee, and (d) employees damaged by the licensee’s failure to pay wages. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7071.5.) The aggregate liability of a surety against a bond’ shall not exceed the sum of seven thousand five hundred dollars ($7,500)? except that a homeowner contracting for home improvement on a personal family residence may recover the full measure of the bond. (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7071.6, subd. (b).) Here, the FAC alleges that Plaintiff entered into a home improvement contract with GCS for the purchase and installation of a solar system at his residence at 1248 and 1250 107th Avenue, Oakland, California 94603. (FAC, ¶¶ 2-4, 161.) ACIC, moreover, does not dispute that Plaintiff is a homeowner who contracted with GCS for home improvement on his personal residence. The aggregate liability of ACIC is accordingly the full measure of the $25,000 bond. B. Propriety of Interpleader “Any 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, sub. (b).) “When the person, firm, corporation, association or other entity against whom such claims are made, or may be made, is a defendant in an action brought upon one or more of such claims, it may either file a verified cross-complaint in interpleader, admitting that it has no interest in the money or property claimed, or in only a portion thereof, and alleging that all or such portion is demanded by parties to such action, and apply to the court upon notice to such parties for an order to deliver such money or property or such portion thereof to such person as the court shall direct.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 386, sub. (b).) ACIC filed a verified Cross-Complaint in interpleader on April 24, 2025. ACIC asserts that the contractor’s license bond is in dispute and is subject to claims that give rise
to multiple liability. (Mot., at p. 3.) It indicates that it is a mere stakeholder with no interest in the money and will deposit the stake upon the Court’s order. (Id., at p. 4.) In support, ACIC submits the declaration of Bond Claims Litigation Supervisor Ivette Nunez (“Nunez”). Nunez attests that ACIC received multiple written demands for payment of losses from the Cross-Defendants named in its interpleader Cross-Complaint, and cannot at this time determine how many claimants will make a demand upon the bond. (Nunez Decl., ¶¶ 9, 12.) Nunez states that once one or more claims against a bond is made, additional claims typically follow shortly thereafter. (Id., ¶ 12.) Nunez further attests that ACIC has no interest in the bond funds claimed. (Id., ¶ 11.) Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that ACIC has established its right to interplead. The interpleader was thus appropriately filed to resolve the multiple claims against the bond. C. Restraining Order After a 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).) ACIC seeks a restraining order preventing Cross-Defendants from instituting or further prosecuting any other proceeding related to the bond. (Mot., at p. 4.) ACIC contends that there is an actual danger of a multiplicity of suits if the restraining order is not granted because GCS is in default, strongly indicating that future claims against the bond will arise. (Id., at pp. 3-4.) ACIC?s counsel’s billing ledger demonstrates that, in preparation for filing the Cross-Complaint in interpleader, counsel analyzed the claims of three separate claimants. (Batoon Decl., Exh. 1.) The Court thus finds that ACIC has shown good cause for an order restraining the parties from prosecuting further claims against the bond until further court order. D. Attorney Fees and Costs “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).) The Court finds that ACIC is entitled to reimbursement for its costs and reasonable
attorney fees incurred in seeking the order of deposit and discharge. ACIC requests reasonable attorney fees and costs in the amount of $5,000 for costs and fees incurred in preparing the Cross-Complaint in interpleader, preparing the Motion, and attending hearings to secure dismissal. (Mot., at p. 5.) In support of the fee request, ACIC?s counsel attests that ACIC has incurred $10,762.91 in fees and costs in bringing the action, submitting a client ledger representing actual hours expended on the case. (Batoon Decl., ¶ 4, Exh. 1.) ACIC?s counsel attests that the firm’s practice is to contemporaneously keep time records and input them into the firm’s billing software system daily. (Id., ¶ 8.) Upon review, the billing entries appear to be credible and reasonable. The Court notes that Chen has filed an Opposition arguing that granting ACIC?s Motion will materially prejudice her rights in the action because she has a pending motion to set aside entry of default. The Court agrees with ACIC that its discharge would not affect Chen’s ability to seek relief from default and rejoin the action to assert her claim against the bond. (Reply, at pp. 3-4.) Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Motion. CONCLUSION Defendant/Cross-Complainant American Contractors Indemnity Company’s Motion for Order of Discharge, Award of Cost and Attorney’s Fees, for Deposit, and for Dismissal is GRANTED. American Contractors Indemnity Company is awarded attorney fees and costs in the amount of $5,000. Upon deposit of $20,000 with the Clerk of the Court, American Contractors Indemnity Company is discharged from all liability regarding the rights and obligations of the parties to this action arising out of its issuance of the $25,000 contractor’s license bond. Upon deposit of the bond, Cross-Defendants are restrained 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. Moving party to give notice. Home -->)" -->