| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Funds
5/14/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 14 of 26
2:00 PM LINE: 4 23-CIV-05363 RAJESHWOR PANDEY VS. KIM MITCHELL, ET AL
RAJESHWOR PANDEY SARAH SHAPERO KIM MITCHELL
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO TRANSFER FUNDS
TENTATIVE RULING:
For the reasons stated below, the unopposed Motion to Transfer Funds (the “Motion”) is GRANTED. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice is GRANTED.
BACKGROUND
According to the allegations, Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a Residential Purchase Agreement (“RPA”) for real property in South San Francisco, under which Plaintiff deposited $100,000 into escrow. Plaintiff later attempted to exercise his right to cancel the RPA pursuant to its terms, but Defendant refused to execute the cancellation. Although Defendant has since sold the real property, Defendant has not released to Plaintiff the $100,000 deposited in escrow.
Plaintiff requested entry of default against Defendant, and the Clerk entered Defendant’s default on March 8, 2024. The parties appeared at a prove-up hearing on May 23, 2024. (Minute Order, May 23, 2024.) That same day, the Court signed a judgment in favor of Plaintiff and against Defendant, awarding Plaintiff $104,197.01. (Judgment, filed May 28, 2024 [the “Judgment”].) Plaintiff filed and served a Notice of Related Case, Case No. 24-CIV-04290 (the “Related Case”), on October 29, 2025.
Through the instant Motion, Plaintiff seeks an order transferring the funds deposited in the Related Case into this case so that Plaintiff may seek release of those funds pursuant to this Court’s Judgment.
FUNDS TRANSFER
Old Republic Title Company (the “Escrow Holder”), the escrow company that held Plaintiff’s $100,000 deposit (the “Funds”), refused to release the Funds without the signatures of all parties to the RPA. Defendant refused to provide his signature and did not respond to Plaintiff’s demands. Plaintiff therefore filed the Related Case on July 12, 2024, to obtain release of the Funds from the Escrow Holder pursuant to Civil Code section 1057.3. Plaintiff requested entry of Defendant’s default in the Related Case, and the Clerk entered default on September 19, 2024. The Escrow Holder intervened in the Related Case and deposited the Funds with the Clerk under that case number on March 14, 2025. (RJN, Ex. C.)
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?”
Plaintiff asserts good cause for the requested transfer because the dispute over the Funds is between Plaintiff and Defendant; the Escrow Holder deposited the Funds with the Court in the Related Case; Judgment has been entered in Plaintiff’s favor in this case; and Plaintiff now seeks to transfer the Funds into this case so that he may seek their release pursuant to the Judgment. (MPA, 2:3–4.)
5/14/26 - Law and Motion Calendar Judge Mark A. McCannon – Department 2 Page 15 of 26
The authority Plaintiff cites for the proposition that the Court has exclusive control over the Funds also explains that the Court may not dispose of court-held funds in any manner it chooses:
“All that the court can claim in the funds is the naked security title which it holds for the property owners. The court obtained possession, but it had no right to make use of the funds other than for the limited purpose for which they were deposited ....”
Although Metropolitan Water Dist. of So. Cal. v. Adams involved condemnation funds, it supports the broader principle that funds deposited with the court remain subject to the limited purpose for which they were deposited and may not be used or disposed of arbitrarily.
However, transferring the Funds from the Related Case to this action, in which judgment concerning the same underlying dispute has already been entered, does not appear to constitute an improper “use” of the Funds. The Court will continue to hold the Funds; the transfer merely changes the case number under which they are maintained. The Related Case appears to involve the same underlying dispute resolved in Plaintiff’s favor in this action, and the factual allegations in the Related Case complaint are substantially similar to those asserted here. Accordingly, the transfer appears administrative in nature rather than a substantive disposition of the Funds. The Judgment awards Plaintiff $104,197.01. (Judgment, 2:6–12.) No opposition to the Motion has been filed.
It is reasonable for the Funds to be held in the case in which the Judgment concerning the Funds was entered. Defendant does not contend that the underlying dispute or the Funds differ from those at issue in this case, nor does Defendant otherwise oppose the Motion.
Accordingly, the unopposed Motion to Transfer Funds is GRANTED.
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the Court. Thereafter, counsel for Plaintiff shall prepare a written order consistent with this ruling for the Court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312, and provide notice of the ruling to all appearing parties as required by law. The Court further directs the parties’ attention to revised Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv) (eff. Jan. 1, 2024) regarding the form of proposed orders.