| Case | County / Judge | Motion | Ruling | Indexed | Hearing |
|---|
Motion For Interpleader Direction, Discharge Of Stakeholder And Reasonable Attorneys Fees
SF Superior Court - Law & Motion / Discovery Dept 301 - CGC23609983 - September 10, 2025 Hearing date: September 10, 2025 Case number: CGC23609983 Case title: BUTCHERSHOP CREATIVE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. CFO RICK INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL Case Number: | | CGC23609983 | Case Title: | | BUTCHERSHOP CREATIVE, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED VS. CFO RICK INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION ET AL | Court Date: | | 2025-09-10 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | Motion For Interpleader Direction, Discharge Of Stakeholder And Reasonable Attorneys Fees | Rulings: | | Matter on the Law & Motion/Discovery Calendar for Wednesday, September 10, 2025, line 3 DEFENDANT RICK BELGARDE, AN INDIVIDUAL, KAREN KELLER, CFO RICK INC. Motion For Interpleader Direction, Discharge Of Stakeholder And Reasonable Attorneys Fees (tentative ruling part 1 of 2)
Hearing required. CFO Rick Inc., Rick Belgarde, and Karen Keller (collectively CFO Rick) seek an order discharging them from this lawsuit with attorneys' fees. CFO Rick has so far deposited $28,000 with the court, installments in its settlement with Butchershop Creative LLC. The settlement anticipates a series of future payments through February 15, 2026 and the full amount is confidential and not disclosed in the papers. Centerstone SBA Lending Inc. and Butchershop have conflicting claims to the settlement payments, and CFO Rick has no interest in the payments.
CFO Rick will be entitled to a discharge and dismissal order once the full amount of the settlement payments are deposited with the court. (See Code Civ. Proc., sec. 386.5.) The court is inclined to grant its request for discharge and fees but cannot do so until all amounts are deposited. CFO Rick has indicated its ability and willingness to accelerate its payments and deposit the full amount of the settlement payments, and the court is inclined to continue the matter for further hearing so that CFO Rick can do so before the continued hearing. The alternative would be to put over this motion to February 2026 after all settlement payments have been made.
The chief argument in opposition that Butchershop and Centerstone raise is to CFO Rick's request for attorneys' fees out of the interpleaded funds. A party filing an interpleader action for an orderly disposition of conflicting claims on a sum in the party's possession is "ordinarily . . . entitled to his attorney's fees and costs." (Messerall v. Fulwider (1988) 199 Cal.App.3d 1324, 1327.) This court has discretion to depart from the ordinary course (Code Civ. Proc., sec. 386.6, subd. (a)) but sees no persuasive reason to do so here.
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?”
As between CFO Rick and Butchershop, there is no reason to oblige CFO Rick to pay fees for the added settlement cost that has come about because Butchershop is claimed to owe money to another party, especially where CFO Rick learned of Centerstone's claim in May 2025 after CFO Rick and Butchershop reached settlement at mediation in April 2025. (See Maxfield Dec. para. 5; Hamilton Reply Dec. para. 2.)
As between CFO Rick and Centerstone, Centerstone's argument is that the filing of an interpleader action was unnecessary because its claim against Butcherstone's settlement proceeds is so clear and meritorious that CFO Rick should not have filed it. That contention is unpersuasive; a party need only be subject to potentially conflicting demands to file an interpleader action. (See Farmers New World Life Ins. Co. v. Rees (2013) 219 Cal.App.4th 307, 321 [life insurance company that filed interpleader action even before receiving a conflicting claim was entitled to fees].)
The opposing parties also raise vague objections to the amount sought. The court finds the amount reasonable and adequately supported and is inclined to award $13,410 to CFO Rick from the interpleaded funds upon entry of a discharge and dismissal order. The court observes that the version of the Rousso Declaration found on the court's electronic register of actions does not attach any exhibits, including the order for writ of attachment that counsel referenced in her declaration. (end of tentative ruling part 1 see part 2) = (302/CVA)
| |