Petition for Writ of Mandate
403.) This case is inapposite, as La Costa has not sought an order for it to release the funds to any party and, unlike in Zinnel, seeks to deposit the funds with the Court.
Plaintiffs further argue that La Costa improperly seeks reimbursement for fees that go beyond pursuit of the interpleader and the requested fees should be reduced. The Court agrees that anticipated fees and costs that have not yet been incurred should not be included in the award but finds the remaining fees and costs to be proper.
In light of the above, La Costa’s Motion for Interpleader is GRANTED. La Costa is ordered to deposit with the court clerk the escrow funds of 958,843.27 less the escrow fees and costs in the amount of $9,417.49 and attorney fees and costs in the amount of $7,428.12. Upon the ordered deposit, La Costa shall be discharged from liability to either party and dismissed from this action.
Moving party to give notice.
107 Child vs. Petition for Writ of Mandate Department of Motor Vehicles On 11/26/2025 Petitioner Joshua Child filed an 25-01529954 Alternative Writ of Mandate. On 5/20/2026 pursuant to Chambers Work- CMC, this Court set the Petition for Writ for 7/28/2026 and ordered Petitioner to give notice. (ROA 13). To date, there is nothing in the Court’s file to indicate Plaintiff/Petitioner gave notice to Defendant of the hearing date. Furthermore, there is no certified administrative record before the Court (Govt. Code § 11523), or points and authorities in support of the Petition (Rules of Court, rule 3.1113).
As such, the Court denies the writ of mandate.
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?”