Motion Directing Distribution of Interpleaded Funds
not proper grounds for a judicial declaration. (See id. at p. 1583.) In light of the above, the Motion is DENIED. Moving party to give notice 2. Order to Show Cause re: Appointment of Counsel re: Monopoly Business Park Association
107 Szeto vs. Woo
19-01087212 Motion to Clarify and Enforce Fee Awards Plaintiff/cross-defendant Gene Szeto moves for an order clarifying the Court’s February 3, 2026 order granting him attorney’s fees and setting a deadline for the payment of the award. Szeto argues that a set date for payment is required to prevent EQD LLC and Kent Salveson from evading payment by arguing that there is no due date. The Motion is unopposed and GRANTED. The February 3, 2026 award of attorney’s fees and costs to Szeto with regard to his anti-SLAPP motion against EQD LLC and Salveson’s Cross-Complaint is to be paid within 60 days of the date of this order. Moving party to give notice.
108 Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. vs. Thru Trading Inc.
23-01311998 Motion Directing Distribution of Interpleaded Funds Defendant/cross-complainant Cheryl R. Royce (“Defendant”) moves for an order directing that the interpleaded funds deposited with the Court by plaintiff Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (“Wells Fargo”) be distributed to her in light of the judgment entered in her favor on her Cross-Complaint against cross-defendant Thru Trading, Inc. (“Thru Trading”). An interpleader action has two phases. In the first phase, the trial court determines the right of the
plaintiff to interplead the funds. (Hood v. Gonzales (2019) 43 Cal.App.5th 57, 71.) In the second phase, the trial court has the power to adjudicate the issues raised by the interpleader, including the disposition of the interpleaded funds. (Id. at p. 72.) Wells Fargo filed this action for interpleader on March 7, 2023, and after deducting its attorney fees and costs, interpleaded with the Court funds in the amount of $24,034.65. Defendant filed a Cross-Complaint against Thru Trading for financial elder abuse, fraud, money had and received, conversion, and unjust enrichment and has obtained judgment in her favor thereon in the amount of $54,907.20, exclusive of recoverable costs.
The judgment in Defendant’s favor exceeds the total amount of the interpleaded funds. Thus, the Court finds that Defendant has established a right to the interpleaded funds in their entirety. Accordingly, the Motion is GRANTED. Defendant to give notice.
109 City of Westminster vs. West
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?”
24-01443472 1. Motion to Compel Answers to Form Interrogatories 2. Motion to Compel Production 3. Motion to Deem Facts Admitted Motion to Compel Further Response to Form Interrogatory Plaintiff, City of Westminster (the “City”), moves for an order compelling Defendant, Amy Phan West (“Defendant”), to provide a further verified supplemental response to the City’s Form Interrogatory No. 15.1, and awarding monetary sanctions in the amount of $4,350 against Defendant and/or her counsel of record. No opposition has been filed.