Motion to Dismiss Stakeholder and Request for Attorney’s Fees and Costs
Defendant did not oppose the motion. As Plaintiff has complied with Rule 3.1324 and has met the requirements for seeking leave to amend, the motion is granted.
Plaintiff is ORDERED to file and serve the proposed First Amended Complaint within 5 days of this ruling.
Plaintiff to give notice.
3. Upcoming CMC
The action is still not at-issue. As such, the court CONTINUES the scheduled 8/24/26 Case Management Conference to 11/30/26, at 10:00 am in Dept. W8. All appearing parties SHALL file and serve a timely case management statement at least 15 calendar days prior to the continued hearing as required by the rules, including California Rules of Court rule 3.725 and Local Rule 369.
Plaintiff to give notice.
11 Scott vs. Innovative Motion to Dismiss Stakeholder and Request for Attorney’s Pain Treatment Fees and Costs Solutions, LLC (Case Management Conference)
1. Motion to Dismiss etc.
Plaintiff KYLE SCOTT filed this interpleader action and now moves for an order: (1) dismissing Plaintiff as stakeholder, (2) awarding $3,174.70 in costs and $8,875.00 in attorney’s fees, and (3) permitting deposit of the remaining interpleaded funds of $14,818.22 regarding Defendant BAHIYA SIGAFOES and $3,728.80 regarding Defendant CHERRY ANTOINE with the court.
On 5/15/26, the pending motion was continued to 7/31/26 because service on Defendant F&M RADIOLOGY MEDICAL CENTER (“F&M”) apparently occurred on 4/22/26, and a response deadline had not yet expired. The proof of service also failed to establish that F&M had been served with the
moving papers. The court therefore ordered Plaintiff to serve F&M immediately with the moving papers, if not already served, and to give all parties, including F&M, notice of the continued hearing. (ROA 124.) Plaintiff subsequently filed a proof of service establishing service of the moving papers on F&M (ROA 129), and F&M’s default was entered on 6/18/26 (ROA 136).
a. Legal Authority
Code of Civil Procedure Section 386.5 provides, “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.” (
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?”
“ ‘Interpleader is an equitable proceeding by which an obligor who is a mere stakeholder may compel conflicting claimants to money or property to interplead and litigate the claims among themselves instead of separately against the obligor . . . . After admitting liability and depositing the money or property with the court, the obligor is discharged from liability and freed from the necessity of participating in the litigation between the claimants.’ [Citations.]” (Southern Calif. Gas Co. v. Flannery (2014) 232 Cal.App.4th 477, 486, emphasis added.) “The true test of suitability for interpleader is the stakeholder’s disavowal of interest in the property sought to be interpleaded, coupled with the perceived ability of the court to resolve the entire controversy as to entitlement to that property without need for the stakeholder to be a party to the suit.” (Pacific Loan Management Corp. v.
Superior Court (1987) 196 Cal.App.3d 1485, 1489-1490.)
Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6 provides:
(a) 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 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 assuming of such costs and attorney fees by one or more of the adverse claimants as may appear proper.
(b) A party shall not be denied the attorney fees authorized by subdivision (a) for the reason that he is himself an attorney, appeared in pro se, and performed his own legal services.
b. Merits
Plaintiff declares that he is a disinterested stakeholder of $18,547.02 in remaining settlement funds, that all defendants have appeared, defaulted, or been dismissed, and that he incurred fees and costs in prosecuting the interpleader action. (Scott Decl., ¶¶ 2-7.) In the moving papers, Plaintiff seeks $3,174.70 in costs and $8,875.00 in attorney’s fees, for a total ward of $12,049.70. (Scott Decl. ¶¶ 4–8 & Exh. 2.) In the supplemental papers, however, Plaintiff increased his requested costs to $3,465.25. (Scott Supp. Decl., ¶¶ 3-6 & Exh. 2.)
Plaintiff has substantially satisfied the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 386.5. The motion is unopposed, and all defendants have appeared, defaulted, or been dismissed.
The requested attorney’s fees, however, appear excessive given the routine nature of the interpleader proceedings, the limited amount in dispute, and the lack of sufficient information supporting the claimed 25 hours of supervision and review. The requested fees would consume nearly half of the $18,547.02 interpleaded fund, before costs are deducted. The court determines that an award of $3,000 in
attorney’s fees is appropriate here, representing six hours at counsel’s requested rate of $500 per hour.
Also, Plaintiff originally requested $3,174.70 in costs. The supplemental declaration (filed on 7/27/26) increases that request to $3,465.25. Plaintiff filed and served the supplemental declaration only four days before the hearing. The court determines that an award of the originally noticed costs of $3,174.70 is appropriate here (and not the recently requested additional cost of $290.55).
Accordingly, the court awards Plaintiff $3,174.70 in costs and $3,000 in attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6, for a total award of $6,174.70. The award shall be allocated pro rata between the respective funds: $4,933.30 to Sigafoes’s fund, leaving $9,884.92, and $1,241.40 to Antoine’s fund, leaving $2,487.40.
Plaintiff SHALL deposit the interpleaded fund with the Clerk of the Court and file proof of deposit within 10 days. Upon filing proof of deposit, Plaintiff shall be discharged as stakeholder and dismissed from the action.
Plaintiff to give notice.
2. CMC
An interpleader action is an equitable proceeding with two phases. Once the plaintiff deposits the funds and is dismissed, phase one is complete.
In the second phase of an interpleader action, the court typically addresses competing claims to the settlement funds. Here, there are apparently no pending competing claims to the remaining res as only BAHIYA SIGAFOES and CHERRY ANTOINE have answered the Complaint. All other defendants have defaulted or been dismissed.
Here, phase one is not yet complete as the funds have not yet been deposited and the stakeholder plaintiff has not yet been dismissed.
The parties should be prepared to discuss how best to proceed under the circumstances.
12 Holtkamp vs. Motion to Dismiss Anaheim Police (Case Management Conference) Department
1. Motion to Dismiss
The court GRANTS Defendant ANAHEIM POLICE DEPARTMENT’s motion to dismiss.
The motion is meritorious. Plaintiff did not amend after the defendant successfully demurred to the entire original complaint. As such, there is no current pleading in this action.
A court may dismiss a case “after a demurrer to the complaint is sustained with leave to amend, the plaintiff fails to amend it within the time allowed by the court and either party moves for dismissal.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 581(f)(2); see also Cal. Rules of Ct, rule 3.1320(h) [when the time to amend after a sustained demurrer has expired, “the court may dismiss the action as to the defendant in whose favor the demurrer was sustained.”].)
After a first amended complaint, a plaintiff “no longer [has] an unfettered right to file an amended complaint.” (Leader v. Health Industries of America, Inc. (2001) 89 Cal.App.4th 603, 612.) A court has the authority to strike pleadings “not filed in conformity with its prior ruling.” (Id. at 613.) A “plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint within the time allowed by the court subject[s] any subsequently filed pleading to a motion to strike...” (Id.) As such, atrial court may strike an amended complaint “filed in disregard of established procedural processes,” and may strike an amended pleading “because no request for permission to amend was sought.” (Id.)
Here, the court sustained defendant’s demurrer to the entire Complaint on 3/27/26, giving Plaintiff 20 days leave
22