Preview
1 Constance E. Norton, Bar No. 146365
cnorton@littler.com
2 Lisa Lin Garcia, Bar No. 260582
llgarcia@littler.com
3 Lee E. Sheldon, Bar No. 263310
lsheldon@littler.com
4 Tiana R. Harding, Bar No. 299189
tharding@littler.com
5 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street, Suite 1000
6 San Francisco, California 94105
Telephone: 415.433.1940
7 Fax No.: 415.399.8490
8 Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and
Cross-Defendant
9 SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC. dba
TRINCHERO FAMILY ESTATES
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 COUNTY OF NAPA
13
14 SAYS SIRI, Case No. 26-59035
15 Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER
HOME WINERY, INC.’S
16 v. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
17 TRINCHERO FAMILY ESTATES, SUTTER AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
HOME WINERY, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, MOTION FOR AN ORDER
18 Inclusive, DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
DISMISSING IT FROM THE
19 Defendants. INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND
AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
20
Date: March 12, 2024
21 SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC., Time: 8:30 a.m.
Dept: B
22 Cross-Complainant,
Complaint Filed: May 22, 2012
23 v. Cross-Complaint Filed: October 20, 2020
Amended Cross-Complaint Filed:
24 SAYS SIRI, DANIEL ROBERT BARTLEY, October 27, 2020
MONIQUE OLIVIER, BENEDON & SERLIN, Second Amended Cross-Complaint Filed:
25 LLP and DOES 1-15, July 14, 2023
Trial Date: April 2, 2024
26 Cross-Defendants.
27
LITTLER 28
MENDELSON, P.C.
101 Second Street CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
Suite 1000 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
San Francisco, CA
94105 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
415.433.1940
1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 Cross-Complainant Sutter Home Winery, Inc. dba Trinchero Family Estates (“Sutter Home”)
3 instituted this interpleader action1 to resolve conflicting claims to a $500,000 settlement payment (the
4 “Settlement Payment”) it deposited with the Court following Cross-Defendant Says Siri’s (“Siri”)
5 blatant refusal to perform under the settlement she entered with Sutter Home. After prolonged
6 proceedings and motion practice, Sutter Home prevailed on its efforts to enforce the settlement when
7 its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication was granted, in part,
8 dismissing Siri’s claims against it. This Court has determined that a valid and enforceable settlement
9 agreement exists between Sutter Home and Siri and, in effect, that Sutter Home has no interest in the
10 Settlement Payment. Thus, the only remaining issue in this litigation is the adverse and conflicting
11 claims to the Settlement Payment by Siri and the multiple attorneys and law firms that have represented
12 her in this action.
13 Given that Sutter Home has prevailed on its claims against Siri and it is a disinterested
14 stakeholder in this interpleader proceeding, Sutter Home requests an order discharging it from liability
15 and dismissing it from the action, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in prosecuting
16 these interpleader proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 386, 386.5 and
17 386.6. Sutter Home respectfully requests the Court provide a statement of decision with specific
18 findings regarding its ruling.
19 II. RELEVANT FACTS
20 A. Siri’s Complaint Against Sutter Home
21 On May 22, 2012, Siri filed a Complaint against Sutter Home alleging causes of action for
22 retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 and wrongful termination in violation of
23 public policy (the “Complaint”). (Declaration of Constance E. Norton (“Norton Decl.”) ¶ 2; Request
24 1
In its cross-complaint, Sutter Home asserted causes of action for: (1) interpleader; (2) breach of
25 contract, (3) specific performance, (4) declaratory relief, and (5) injunctive relief. (Norton Decl. ¶ 32; RJN
¶ BB, Exh. 28). The Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Sutter Home as to its specific
26 performance and declaratory relief causes of action, and Sutter Home voluntarily dismissed its breach
of contract and injunctive relief claims because it achieved its litigation objectives through summary
27 adjudication. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 35-36; RJN ¶¶ DD-EE, Exhs. 30-31). Accordingly, the only remaining
cause of action in Sutter Home’s cross-complaint is the interpleader claim.
28 2
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) ¶ A, Exh. 1). Sutter Home prevailed, in part, on a motion for summary
2 judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of Siri’s claims on May 2, 2013, and this Court
3 dismissed Siri’s Labor Code section 1102.5 claims. (Norton Decl. ¶ 4; RJN ¶ C, Exh. 3). Following
4 the Court’s order, Siri’s sole remaining claim against Sutter Home was for wrongful termination in
5 violation of public policy. (Norton Decl. ¶ 4).
6 B. The Parties Entered a Valid Settlement To Resolve Siri’s Claims Against Sutter
Home.
7
On October 29, 2019, Sutter Home issued an Offer to Compromise pursuant to California Code
8
of Civil Procedure Section 998 to Siri (the “Offer”). (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. A). The unambiguous language of
9
the Offer stated Sutter Home would pay to Siri:
10
the total sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($500,000.00), in full
11 and complete settlement of her claims in this action, including the remaining cause of
action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, to be inclusive of all
12 potential economic and non-economic damages arising therefrom, as well as
reasonable costs incurred as of the date of this Offer…conditioned upon the dismissal,
13 with prejudice, of all claims brought by Plaintiff against Sutter Home in the above-
captioned matter.
14
(Id.) (emphasis added).
15
On December 2, 2019, Siri served on Sutter Home a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance of
16
Defendant’s 998 Offer” (the “Counteroffer”). (Id. ¶ 6, Exhs. B & C). The Counteroffer incorporated
17
and conditionally accepted Sutter Home’s Offer subject to clarification by the Court of three issues.
18
(Id.).
19
Sutter Home accepted Siri’s Counteroffer and the Court issued orders providing clarification
20
as to each request contained in the Counteroffer. (Id. ¶¶ 7-11, 13-14, & 16; RJN ¶¶ D-H, J-K, & M,
21
Exhs. 4-8, 10-11, & 13). The Court also issued an order granting Sutter Home’s motion to enforce the
22
settlement with Siri (“Motion to Enforce”) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 998
23
on July 30, 2020. (Norton Decl. ¶ 13, RJN ¶ J, Exh. 10).
24
C. Siri Refused to Perform Her Obligations Under the Settlement.
25
Notwithstanding that a settlement was reached, Siri refused to dismiss her Complaint against
26
Sutter Home as required under the settlement. On September 14, 2020, Siri filed a Notice of Appeal
27
28 3
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 of Sutter Home’s Motion to Enforce. (Norton Decl. ¶ 15; RJN ¶ L, Ex. 12). On October 5, 2020, Siri
2 filed a response to the Court’s OSC regarding dismissal and stated that she was refusing to accept the
3 Settlement Payment from Sutter Home. (Norton Decl. ¶ 17, RJN ¶ N , Exh. 14). Siri suggested that,
4 instead, the parties stipulate to place the Settlement Payment in an interest-bearing account or to
5 interplead the funds pending the outcome of her appeal. (Id.). At the OSC hearing, the Court granted
6 Sutter Home’s request to file a Cross-Complaint in Interpleader and the Court continued the OSC to
7 October 29, 2020. (Norton Decl. ¶ 18; RJN ¶ O, Exh. 15).
8 D. Sutter Home Filed This Interpleader Action and Disavowed Interest In The
Settlement Payment.
9
Due to Siri’s deliberate disregard of her obligation to dismiss her action against Sutter Home,
10
on October 20, 2020, Sutter Home filed a Cross-Complaint alleging one cause of action for
11
Interpleader against Siri and the attorneys who had, to date, represented her in this action, Daniel
12
Bartley (“Mr. Bartley”) and Monique Olivier (“Ms. Olivier”). (Norton Decl. ¶ 19; RJN ¶ P, Ex. 16).
13
By its Cross-Complaint in Interpleader, Sutter Home declared that it held no interest in the Settlement
14
Payment due to the valid settlement it had entered into with Siri, and that the true remaining conflict
15
lay between Siri and her attorneys. (Id.) Siri then informed Sutter Home of her plan to abandon and
16
refile her appeal after the Court dismissed the action. (Norton Decl. ¶ 20). On October 27, 2020, Sutter
17
Home filed an Amended Cross-Complaint which included information regarding Siri’s abandonment
18
of her appeal. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22; RJN ¶¶ Q-R, Exhs. 17-18).
19
On October 29, 2020 and November 10, 2020, this Court granted Sutter Home’s request to
20
interplead the Settlement Payment and, on November 12, 2020, Sutter Home deposited the full
21
$500,000 Settlement Payment with the Court. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 23-25, Exh. D; RJN ¶¶ S-T, Exhs. 19-
22
20). This Court then entered a judgment of dismissal of Siri’s claims against Sutter Home on the
23
ground that Siri entered into a settlement enforceable under California Code of Civil Procedure section
24
998, while maintaining jurisdiction over Sutter Home’s Cross-Complaint. (Norton Decl. ¶ 26; RJN
25
¶ U, Exh. 21).
26
Following the judgment of dismissal, on January 27, 2021, Siri filed a renewed appeal based
27
28 4
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 on the Order to Sutter Home’s Motion to Enforce. (Norton Decl. ¶ 27; RJN ¶ V, Exh. 22). The Court
2 of Appeal reversed and remanded the judgment of dismissal, holding the settlement was not
3 enforceable under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, but that it may be enforceable by
4 other means. (Norton Decl. ¶ 29; RJN ¶ X, Ex. 24).
5 On January 31, 2023, Sutter Home filed a second Motion to Enforce the settlement between
6 Siri and Sutter Home, which was denied on procedural grounds. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 31-32; RJN ¶¶ Z-
7 AA, Exh. 26-27).
8 On June 9, 2023, Sutter Home filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Cross-
9 Complaint to assert new causes of action against Siri for breach of contract, specific performance,
10 declaratory relief, and injunctive relief based on the settlement and adding plaintiff’s counsel, Benedon
11 & Serlin, LLP as a cross-defendant to the interpleader cause of action. (Norton Decl. ¶ 33; RJN ¶ BB,
12 Exh. 28). The Court granted Sutter Home's motion and, on July 14, 2023, Sutter Home filed its Second
13 Amended Cross-Complaint. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 34-35; RJN ¶¶ CC-DD, Exhs. 29-30).
14 Subsequently, on October 3, 2023, Sutter Home filed a motion for summary judgment or, in
15 the alternative, summary adjudication to enforce the settlement between Sutter Home and Siri.
16 (Norton Decl. ¶ 36; RJN ¶ EE, Exh. 31). The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Sutter
17 Home as to Siri’s sole remaining claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and
18 summary adjudication in favor of Sutter Home as to its cross-claims for specific performance and
19 declaratory relief, and denied summary adjudication of Sutter Home’s cross-claims for breach of
20 contract and injunctive relief. (Norton Decl. ¶ 37; RJN ¶ FF, Exh. 32). Sutter Home filed a dismissal
21 of its breach of contract and injunctive relief claims on January 23, 2024 because it had achieved its
22 litigation objectives through summary judgment and summary adjudication. (Norton Decl. ¶ 38; RJN
23 ¶ GG, Exh. 33). The Court entered judgment dismissing Siri’s Complaint against Sutter Home on
24 January 29, 2024. (Norton Decl. ¶ 39; RJN ¶ HH, Exh. 34).
25 E. Siri And Her Former Counsel Have Conflicting Claims to The Settlement
Payment.
26
On July 21, 2020, Mr. Bartley filed a Notice of Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Lien of Plaintiff’s
27
28 5
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 Attorney Daniel Robert Bartley wherein he asserted a 30% lien against any recovery by Siri. (Norton
2 Decl. ¶ 12; RJN ¶ I, Exh. 9). Subsequently, on January 15, 2021, Ms. Olivier filed and served a Notice
3 of Attorney’s Lien of Monique Olivier asserting a 10% lien against any recovery by Siri. (Norton
4 Decl. ¶ 28; RJN ¶ W, Exh. 23). On or about November 7, 2022, Benedon & Serlin, LLP (“B&S”),
5 counsel for Siri in her January 27, 2021 appeal against Sutter Home, filed and served a Notice of Lien
6 in which it claimed to have a lien on any settlement and/or other relief rendered in favor of Siri.
7 (Norton Decl. ¶ 30; RJN ¶ Y, Exh. 25.) By their notices, each of these attorneys and/or firms have
8 asserted their separate interest in the Settlement Payment.
9 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
10 A. The Court Should Discharge Sutter Home from Liability And Dismiss It From
The Action.
11
12 California Code of Civil Procedure sections 386 and 386.5 provide that a party who is a mere
13 stakeholder with no interest in an amount deposited with the Court may file a verified cross-complaint
14 in interpleader and, upon notice to the interested parties, request the Court discharge it from liability
15 and dismiss it from the action. See Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 386 and 386.5.
16 Here, there is no dispute that Sutter Home deposited the $500,000 Settlement Payment with
17 the Court and filed a verified cross-complaint in interpleader (and amendments thereto) in which it
18 disavowed any interest in said Settlement Payment. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 19, 22-25, & 33-35, Exh. D;
19 RJN ¶¶ P, R-T, & BB-DD, Exhs. 16, 18-20, & 28-30). Further, this Court determined that Siri entered
20 a valid settlement with Sutter Home and has now disposed of all of Siri’s claims against Sutter Home.
21 (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 37 & 30; RJN ¶¶ FF & HH, Exhs. 32 & 34). Thus, any remaining dispute is properly
22 between Siri and all the attorneys who have represented her as to the distribution of the Settlement
23 Payment. Based on the foregoing, all of the requirements under California Code of Civil Procedure
24 sections 386 and 386.5 have been met; therefore, Sutter Home respectfully requests this Court
25 discharge it from further liability and dismiss it with prejudice in the interpleader proceedings.
26 B. Sutter Home Is Entitled to Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs.
27 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 provides in part: “When any statute of this
28 6
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 state refers to the award of ‘costs and attorney's fees,’ attorney's fees are an item and component of
2 the costs to be awarded and are allowable as costs pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (10) of
3 subdivision (a).” Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1033(c)(5). California Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6
4 allows for an award of attorneys’ fees as costs in interpleader actions. Section 386.6 provides that “[a]
5 party to an action who follows the procedures set forth in Section 386 or 386.5 may insert in his
6 motion…or cross complaint a request for allowance of his costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred
7 in such action.” Cal Code Civ. Pro. § 386.6(a). Section 386.6 further provides that, “[i]n ordering the
8 discharge of such party, the court may, in its discretion, award such party his costs and reasonable
9 attorney fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court.” Id. “[S]ection
10 386.6, subdivision (a), gives the court statutory authority to award [cross-complainant] attorney fees
11 and costs until [cross-complainant] was fully and finally discharged from the proceeding, which
12 includes defending the interpleader complaint and discharge order against subsequent motions, writ
13 petitions, and appeals.” Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery, 5 Cal. App. 5th 476, 487 (2016)
14 (citing Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 41 Cal.App.3d 16, 20 (1974)). Therefore, Sutter Home
15 is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in prosecuting its interpleader cross-action.
16 1. The Attorneys’ Fees Requested by Sutter Home Are Reasonable Under
The Lodestar Method.
17
In determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, courts begin with the “lodestar” figure,
18
which is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonably hourly rate. Serrano
19
v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 48 (197); Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th at 1131-32 (2001). The lodestar is
20
the “basic fee for comparable legal services in the community,” which may be adjusted according to
21
factors present in the case, including: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the
22
skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other
23
employment by the attorneys, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” Ketchum, 24 Cal. 4th
24
at 1132 (2001). “The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the
25
particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation…required
26
extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the
27
28 7
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 fair market rate for such services.” Courts have “wide latitude in determining the amount of an award
2 of attorneys’ fees.” Montgomery v. Bio-Med Specialties, Inc., 183 Cal. App. 3d 1292, 1297 (1986).
3 a. Sutter Home’s Attorneys’ Hourly Rates are Reasonable.
4 For purposes of determining the lodestar figure, “[t]he reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing
5 in the community for similar work.” PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095 (2000);
6 see also Nemecek & Cole v. Horn, 208 Cal. App. 4th 641, 651 (2012) (“The reasonable market value
7 of the attorney’s services is the measure of a reasonable hourly rate.”) This is true even irrespective
8 of whether the party seeking fees was actually charged for the legal services or was charged below
9 market rates. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th at 1094-95; Mandel v. Lackner, 92 Cal. App. 3 747, 761 (1979)
10 (“The value of any attorney’s time generally is reflected in his normal billing rate”).
11 The hourly rates charged by Littler Mendelson, P.C., Sutter Home’s attorneys in the
12 interpleader action, are reasonable in light of the experience of counsel, the quality of work performed,
13 and the hourly rates charged by attorneys at similar firms in San Francisco. See Horsford v. Board of
14 Trustees of Calif. State Univ., 132 Cal. App. 4th 359, 398-399 (2005). Between October 2020 and the
15 date of the filing of this motion, the reasonable and customary billing rate of the Litter Mendelson
16 attorneys representing Sutter Home in this action ranged from $495 to $945 per hour, depending on
17 level and experience. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 41). However, while Sutter Home is entitled to request its
18 counsel’s full billing rate (see Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th at 1094-95), Sutter Home solely seeks to recover
19 the rates actually charged in prosecuting its interpleader claim, which range from $225.00 to $652.00
20 per hour. (Id.).
21 Due to the complex nature of Sutter Home’s interpleader claim, Littler Mendelson, P.C. was
22 required to engage paralegal assistance in prosecuting the interpleader. A party may recover for time
23 spent by paralegals and case clerks, compensable at market rates, if the local practice is to bill for their
24 services in such a manner. See Guinn v. Dotson, 23 Cal. App. 4th 262, 268 (1994). The local practice
25 in San Francisco and Napa Counties is to bill clients for work performed by paralegals and case clerks.
26 (Norton Decl. ¶ 42). Therefore, Sutter Home should recover its fees for the work performed by its
27 paralegals and case clerk.
28 8
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 Between October 2020 and the date of the filing of this motion, the reasonable and customary
2 billing rate of the paralegals and case clerks Littler Mendelson engaged in representing Sutter Home
3 as to its interpleader claim ranged from $275 to $475 per hour. (Id.). However, Sutter Home only
4 seeks to recover the rate actually charged for paralegal assistance, which was $95 per hour. Id.
5 b. The Time Expended by Sutter Home’s Counsel Is Reasonable.
6 All hours reasonably expended in litigating a matter are generally compensable. See MBNA
7 Am. Bank v. Gorman, 147 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 12 (2006) (party may recover attorneys’ fees for
8 drafting and revising pleadings, legal research and briefing, conferring with opposing counsel and
9 clients, and preparing and attending hearings); Evans v. Unkow, 38 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 1499 (1995)
10 (a statute allowing recovery of attorney fees at trial also authorizes attorneys fees on appeal); Flannery,
11 5 Cal. App. 5th at 487 (fees for seeking discharge from an interpleader action are recoverable). This
12 includes time spent pursuing unsuccessful legal theories. “Litigants in good faith may raise alternative
13 legal grounds for a desired outcome, and the court’s rejection of or failure to reach certain grounds is
14 not a sufficient reason for reducing a fee. The result is what matters.” Sundance v. Mun.Ct., 192 Cal.
15 App. 3d 268, 273-274 (1987) (internal quotes omitted).
16 Sutter Home has expended a considerable amount of time in maintaining the interpleader
17 action. This is primarily due to Siri’s refusal to recognize that Sutter Home was no longer an interested
18 party in the action, and failure to adhere to the settlement terms and dismiss her claims against Sutter
19 Home. Because of Siri’s actions, Sutter Home expended substantial resources in filing the interpleader
20 claim, as well as seeking to enforce the settlement, fighting Siri’s appeal, and, ultimately, successfully
21 attaining summary judgment and summary adjudication declaring the parties entered into an
22 enforceable settlement agreement, resulting in the dismissal of Siri’s claims – all of which was in
23 furtherance of the interpleader. See Akins v. Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of San Francisco, 79 Cal. App.
24 4th 1127, 1133 (2000) (“the joinder of causes of action should not dilute the right to attorney fees.
25 Such fees need not be apportioned when incurred for representation of an issue common to both a
26 cause of action for which fees are permitted and one for which they are not. All expenses incurred on
27 the common issues qualify for an award”).
28 9
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 In total, Sutter Home expended 1,392.10 hours in billable time since October of 2020, when it
2 prepared and filed the interpleader cross-complaint, (Norton Decl. ¶ 43), and incurred $355,710.50 in
3 attorneys’ fees in prosecuting the interpleader, including the time spent requesting that the Court
4 enforce the settlement reached between Siri and Sutter Home. (Id.) Sutter Home also estimates it will
5 spend an additional $7,368.50 in attorneys’ fees for the preparation and filing of this Motion and it’s
6 Memorandum of Costs, and arguing this Motion at the hearing. (Id. ¶ 44). Sutter Home’s defense
7 attorneys and staff recorded and documented their time contemporaneously or within a reasonable
8 time thereafter to ensure accuracy. (Norton Decl. ¶ 43). All the time spent by Sutter Home’s counsel
9 has been reasonable given the complex nature of the interpleader, including the contentious and
10 prolonged motion practice and appeal due to Siri’s attacks on the enforceability of her settlement with
11 Sutter Home. As these attacks on the settlement directly relate to the propriety of Sutter Home’s
12 interpleader claim, Sutter Home was hindered in its ability to be discharged from the interpleader
13 cross-action until the Court found the settlement to be binding and enforceable. See S. Cal. Gas Co.
14 v. Flannery, 5 Cal.App.5th 476 (2016) (California Code of Civil section 386.6(a) “gives the trial court
15 authority to award attorney fees to the [stakeholder] for fees and costs incurred not only to initiate the
16 Interpleader Case and obtain discharge, but also to defend against subsequent motions, writ petitions,
17 and appeals attacking the validity of the interpleader complaint and discharge order”); see also Hensley
18 v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 431 (1983)(citing Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 8 E.P.D. ¶ 9444 (C.D.
19 Cal. 1974)) (the appropriate number of hours includes “all time reasonably expended in pursuit of the
20 ultimate result achieved in the same manner that an attorney traditionally is compensated by a fee-
21 paying client for all time reasonably expended on a matter”).
22
23 ///
24
25 ///
26
27
28 10
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
1 IV. CONCLUSION
2 Based on the foregoing, Sutter Home respectfully requests that the Court discharge it from any
3 liability in this action , dismiss it with prejudice from this interpleader action pursuant to California
4 Code of Civil Procedure section 385.6, and award Sutter Home attorneys’ fees in the sum of
5 $363,079.00 for prosecuting the interpleader action.
6
7 Dated: February 9, 2024
LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C.
8
9
10 Constance E. Norton
Lisa Lin Garcia
11 Lee E. Sheldon
Tiana R. Harding
12
Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant,
13 and Cross-Defendant
SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC. dba
14 TRINCHERO FAMILY ESTATES
15
4872-6447-0431.9 / 071749-1001
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 11
LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
P.C.
101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY,
Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES
San Francisco, CA
Preview
1 Constance E. Norton, Bar No. 146365 cnorton@littler.com 2 Lisa Lin Garcia, Bar No. 260582 llgarcia@littler.com 3 Lee E. Sheldon, Bar No. 263310 lsheldon@littler.com 4 Tiana R. Harding, Bar No. 299189 tharding@littler.com 5 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street, Suite 1000 6 San Francisco, California 94105 Telephone: 415.433.1940 7 Fax No.: 415.399.8490 8 Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant, and Cross-Defendant 9 SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC. dba TRINCHERO FAMILY ESTATES 10 11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 12 COUNTY OF NAPA 13 14 SAYS SIRI, Case No. 26-59035 15 Plaintiff, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S 16 v. MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND 17 TRINCHERO FAMILY ESTATES, SUTTER AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF HOME WINERY, INC., and DOES 1 through 10, MOTION FOR AN ORDER 18 Inclusive, DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, DISMISSING IT FROM THE 19 Defendants. INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES 20 Date: March 12, 2024 21 SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC., Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept: B 22 Cross-Complainant, Complaint Filed: May 22, 2012 23 v. Cross-Complaint Filed: October 20, 2020 Amended Cross-Complaint Filed: 24 SAYS SIRI, DANIEL ROBERT BARTLEY, October 27, 2020 MONIQUE OLIVIER, BENEDON & SERLIN, Second Amended Cross-Complaint Filed: 25 LLP and DOES 1-15, July 14, 2023 Trial Date: April 2, 2024 26 Cross-Defendants. 27 LITTLER 28 MENDELSON, P.C. 101 Second Street CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND Suite 1000 AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, San Francisco, CA 94105 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES 415.433.1940 1 I. INTRODUCTION 2 Cross-Complainant Sutter Home Winery, Inc. dba Trinchero Family Estates (“Sutter Home”) 3 instituted this interpleader action1 to resolve conflicting claims to a $500,000 settlement payment (the 4 “Settlement Payment”) it deposited with the Court following Cross-Defendant Says Siri’s (“Siri”) 5 blatant refusal to perform under the settlement she entered with Sutter Home. After prolonged 6 proceedings and motion practice, Sutter Home prevailed on its efforts to enforce the settlement when 7 its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication was granted, in part, 8 dismissing Siri’s claims against it. This Court has determined that a valid and enforceable settlement 9 agreement exists between Sutter Home and Siri and, in effect, that Sutter Home has no interest in the 10 Settlement Payment. Thus, the only remaining issue in this litigation is the adverse and conflicting 11 claims to the Settlement Payment by Siri and the multiple attorneys and law firms that have represented 12 her in this action. 13 Given that Sutter Home has prevailed on its claims against Siri and it is a disinterested 14 stakeholder in this interpleader proceeding, Sutter Home requests an order discharging it from liability 15 and dismissing it from the action, as well as an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in prosecuting 16 these interpleader proceedings pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 386, 386.5 and 17 386.6. Sutter Home respectfully requests the Court provide a statement of decision with specific 18 findings regarding its ruling. 19 II. RELEVANT FACTS 20 A. Siri’s Complaint Against Sutter Home 21 On May 22, 2012, Siri filed a Complaint against Sutter Home alleging causes of action for 22 retaliation in violation of California Labor Code § 1102.5 and wrongful termination in violation of 23 public policy (the “Complaint”). (Declaration of Constance E. Norton (“Norton Decl.”) ¶ 2; Request 24 1 In its cross-complaint, Sutter Home asserted causes of action for: (1) interpleader; (2) breach of 25 contract, (3) specific performance, (4) declaratory relief, and (5) injunctive relief. (Norton Decl. ¶ 32; RJN ¶ BB, Exh. 28). The Court granted summary adjudication in favor of Sutter Home as to its specific 26 performance and declaratory relief causes of action, and Sutter Home voluntarily dismissed its breach of contract and injunctive relief claims because it achieved its litigation objectives through summary 27 adjudication. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 35-36; RJN ¶¶ DD-EE, Exhs. 30-31). Accordingly, the only remaining cause of action in Sutter Home’s cross-complaint is the interpleader claim. 28 2 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 for Judicial Notice (“RJN”) ¶ A, Exh. 1). Sutter Home prevailed, in part, on a motion for summary 2 judgment, or in the alternative, summary adjudication of Siri’s claims on May 2, 2013, and this Court 3 dismissed Siri’s Labor Code section 1102.5 claims. (Norton Decl. ¶ 4; RJN ¶ C, Exh. 3). Following 4 the Court’s order, Siri’s sole remaining claim against Sutter Home was for wrongful termination in 5 violation of public policy. (Norton Decl. ¶ 4). 6 B. The Parties Entered a Valid Settlement To Resolve Siri’s Claims Against Sutter Home. 7 On October 29, 2019, Sutter Home issued an Offer to Compromise pursuant to California Code 8 of Civil Procedure Section 998 to Siri (the “Offer”). (Id. ¶ 5, Exh. A). The unambiguous language of 9 the Offer stated Sutter Home would pay to Siri: 10 the total sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars and No Cents ($500,000.00), in full 11 and complete settlement of her claims in this action, including the remaining cause of action for wrongful termination in violation of public policy, to be inclusive of all 12 potential economic and non-economic damages arising therefrom, as well as reasonable costs incurred as of the date of this Offer…conditioned upon the dismissal, 13 with prejudice, of all claims brought by Plaintiff against Sutter Home in the above- captioned matter. 14 (Id.) (emphasis added). 15 On December 2, 2019, Siri served on Sutter Home a “Notice of Conditional Acceptance of 16 Defendant’s 998 Offer” (the “Counteroffer”). (Id. ¶ 6, Exhs. B & C). The Counteroffer incorporated 17 and conditionally accepted Sutter Home’s Offer subject to clarification by the Court of three issues. 18 (Id.). 19 Sutter Home accepted Siri’s Counteroffer and the Court issued orders providing clarification 20 as to each request contained in the Counteroffer. (Id. ¶¶ 7-11, 13-14, & 16; RJN ¶¶ D-H, J-K, & M, 21 Exhs. 4-8, 10-11, & 13). The Court also issued an order granting Sutter Home’s motion to enforce the 22 settlement with Siri (“Motion to Enforce”) pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 998 23 on July 30, 2020. (Norton Decl. ¶ 13, RJN ¶ J, Exh. 10). 24 C. Siri Refused to Perform Her Obligations Under the Settlement. 25 Notwithstanding that a settlement was reached, Siri refused to dismiss her Complaint against 26 Sutter Home as required under the settlement. On September 14, 2020, Siri filed a Notice of Appeal 27 28 3 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 of Sutter Home’s Motion to Enforce. (Norton Decl. ¶ 15; RJN ¶ L, Ex. 12). On October 5, 2020, Siri 2 filed a response to the Court’s OSC regarding dismissal and stated that she was refusing to accept the 3 Settlement Payment from Sutter Home. (Norton Decl. ¶ 17, RJN ¶ N , Exh. 14). Siri suggested that, 4 instead, the parties stipulate to place the Settlement Payment in an interest-bearing account or to 5 interplead the funds pending the outcome of her appeal. (Id.). At the OSC hearing, the Court granted 6 Sutter Home’s request to file a Cross-Complaint in Interpleader and the Court continued the OSC to 7 October 29, 2020. (Norton Decl. ¶ 18; RJN ¶ O, Exh. 15). 8 D. Sutter Home Filed This Interpleader Action and Disavowed Interest In The Settlement Payment. 9 Due to Siri’s deliberate disregard of her obligation to dismiss her action against Sutter Home, 10 on October 20, 2020, Sutter Home filed a Cross-Complaint alleging one cause of action for 11 Interpleader against Siri and the attorneys who had, to date, represented her in this action, Daniel 12 Bartley (“Mr. Bartley”) and Monique Olivier (“Ms. Olivier”). (Norton Decl. ¶ 19; RJN ¶ P, Ex. 16). 13 By its Cross-Complaint in Interpleader, Sutter Home declared that it held no interest in the Settlement 14 Payment due to the valid settlement it had entered into with Siri, and that the true remaining conflict 15 lay between Siri and her attorneys. (Id.) Siri then informed Sutter Home of her plan to abandon and 16 refile her appeal after the Court dismissed the action. (Norton Decl. ¶ 20). On October 27, 2020, Sutter 17 Home filed an Amended Cross-Complaint which included information regarding Siri’s abandonment 18 of her appeal. (Id. ¶¶ 21-22; RJN ¶¶ Q-R, Exhs. 17-18). 19 On October 29, 2020 and November 10, 2020, this Court granted Sutter Home’s request to 20 interplead the Settlement Payment and, on November 12, 2020, Sutter Home deposited the full 21 $500,000 Settlement Payment with the Court. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 23-25, Exh. D; RJN ¶¶ S-T, Exhs. 19- 22 20). This Court then entered a judgment of dismissal of Siri’s claims against Sutter Home on the 23 ground that Siri entered into a settlement enforceable under California Code of Civil Procedure section 24 998, while maintaining jurisdiction over Sutter Home’s Cross-Complaint. (Norton Decl. ¶ 26; RJN 25 ¶ U, Exh. 21). 26 Following the judgment of dismissal, on January 27, 2021, Siri filed a renewed appeal based 27 28 4 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 on the Order to Sutter Home’s Motion to Enforce. (Norton Decl. ¶ 27; RJN ¶ V, Exh. 22). The Court 2 of Appeal reversed and remanded the judgment of dismissal, holding the settlement was not 3 enforceable under California Code of Civil Procedure section 998, but that it may be enforceable by 4 other means. (Norton Decl. ¶ 29; RJN ¶ X, Ex. 24). 5 On January 31, 2023, Sutter Home filed a second Motion to Enforce the settlement between 6 Siri and Sutter Home, which was denied on procedural grounds. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 31-32; RJN ¶¶ Z- 7 AA, Exh. 26-27). 8 On June 9, 2023, Sutter Home filed a motion for leave to file a Second Amended Cross- 9 Complaint to assert new causes of action against Siri for breach of contract, specific performance, 10 declaratory relief, and injunctive relief based on the settlement and adding plaintiff’s counsel, Benedon 11 & Serlin, LLP as a cross-defendant to the interpleader cause of action. (Norton Decl. ¶ 33; RJN ¶ BB, 12 Exh. 28). The Court granted Sutter Home's motion and, on July 14, 2023, Sutter Home filed its Second 13 Amended Cross-Complaint. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 34-35; RJN ¶¶ CC-DD, Exhs. 29-30). 14 Subsequently, on October 3, 2023, Sutter Home filed a motion for summary judgment or, in 15 the alternative, summary adjudication to enforce the settlement between Sutter Home and Siri. 16 (Norton Decl. ¶ 36; RJN ¶ EE, Exh. 31). The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Sutter 17 Home as to Siri’s sole remaining claim for wrongful termination in violation of public policy and 18 summary adjudication in favor of Sutter Home as to its cross-claims for specific performance and 19 declaratory relief, and denied summary adjudication of Sutter Home’s cross-claims for breach of 20 contract and injunctive relief. (Norton Decl. ¶ 37; RJN ¶ FF, Exh. 32). Sutter Home filed a dismissal 21 of its breach of contract and injunctive relief claims on January 23, 2024 because it had achieved its 22 litigation objectives through summary judgment and summary adjudication. (Norton Decl. ¶ 38; RJN 23 ¶ GG, Exh. 33). The Court entered judgment dismissing Siri’s Complaint against Sutter Home on 24 January 29, 2024. (Norton Decl. ¶ 39; RJN ¶ HH, Exh. 34). 25 E. Siri And Her Former Counsel Have Conflicting Claims to The Settlement Payment. 26 On July 21, 2020, Mr. Bartley filed a Notice of Statutory Attorneys’ Fees Lien of Plaintiff’s 27 28 5 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 Attorney Daniel Robert Bartley wherein he asserted a 30% lien against any recovery by Siri. (Norton 2 Decl. ¶ 12; RJN ¶ I, Exh. 9). Subsequently, on January 15, 2021, Ms. Olivier filed and served a Notice 3 of Attorney’s Lien of Monique Olivier asserting a 10% lien against any recovery by Siri. (Norton 4 Decl. ¶ 28; RJN ¶ W, Exh. 23). On or about November 7, 2022, Benedon & Serlin, LLP (“B&S”), 5 counsel for Siri in her January 27, 2021 appeal against Sutter Home, filed and served a Notice of Lien 6 in which it claimed to have a lien on any settlement and/or other relief rendered in favor of Siri. 7 (Norton Decl. ¶ 30; RJN ¶ Y, Exh. 25.) By their notices, each of these attorneys and/or firms have 8 asserted their separate interest in the Settlement Payment. 9 III. LEGAL ARGUMENT 10 A. The Court Should Discharge Sutter Home from Liability And Dismiss It From The Action. 11 12 California Code of Civil Procedure sections 386 and 386.5 provide that a party who is a mere 13 stakeholder with no interest in an amount deposited with the Court may file a verified cross-complaint 14 in interpleader and, upon notice to the interested parties, request the Court discharge it from liability 15 and dismiss it from the action. See Cal. Code Civ. Pro. §§ 386 and 386.5. 16 Here, there is no dispute that Sutter Home deposited the $500,000 Settlement Payment with 17 the Court and filed a verified cross-complaint in interpleader (and amendments thereto) in which it 18 disavowed any interest in said Settlement Payment. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 19, 22-25, & 33-35, Exh. D; 19 RJN ¶¶ P, R-T, & BB-DD, Exhs. 16, 18-20, & 28-30). Further, this Court determined that Siri entered 20 a valid settlement with Sutter Home and has now disposed of all of Siri’s claims against Sutter Home. 21 (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 37 & 30; RJN ¶¶ FF & HH, Exhs. 32 & 34). Thus, any remaining dispute is properly 22 between Siri and all the attorneys who have represented her as to the distribution of the Settlement 23 Payment. Based on the foregoing, all of the requirements under California Code of Civil Procedure 24 sections 386 and 386.5 have been met; therefore, Sutter Home respectfully requests this Court 25 discharge it from further liability and dismiss it with prejudice in the interpleader proceedings. 26 B. Sutter Home Is Entitled to Reasonable Attorneys’ Fees and Costs. 27 California Code of Civil Procedure section 1033.5 provides in part: “When any statute of this 28 6 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 state refers to the award of ‘costs and attorney's fees,’ attorney's fees are an item and component of 2 the costs to be awarded and are allowable as costs pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph (10) of 3 subdivision (a).” Cal. Code Civ. Pro. § 1033(c)(5). California Code of Civil Procedure section 386.6 4 allows for an award of attorneys’ fees as costs in interpleader actions. Section 386.6 provides that “[a] 5 party to an action who follows the procedures set forth in Section 386 or 386.5 may insert in his 6 motion…or cross complaint a request for allowance of his costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred 7 in such action.” Cal Code Civ. Pro. § 386.6(a). Section 386.6 further provides that, “[i]n ordering the 8 discharge of such party, the court may, in its discretion, award such party his costs and reasonable 9 attorney fees from the amount in dispute which has been deposited with the court.” Id. “[S]ection 10 386.6, subdivision (a), gives the court statutory authority to award [cross-complainant] attorney fees 11 and costs until [cross-complainant] was fully and finally discharged from the proceeding, which 12 includes defending the interpleader complaint and discharge order against subsequent motions, writ 13 petitions, and appeals.” Southern California Gas Co. v. Flannery, 5 Cal. App. 5th 476, 487 (2016) 14 (citing Lincoln Nat. Life Ins. Co. v. Mitchell, 41 Cal.App.3d 16, 20 (1974)). Therefore, Sutter Home 15 is entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees in prosecuting its interpleader cross-action. 16 1. The Attorneys’ Fees Requested by Sutter Home Are Reasonable Under The Lodestar Method. 17 In determining the reasonableness of attorneys’ fees, courts begin with the “lodestar” figure, 18 which is the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonably hourly rate. Serrano 19 v. Priest, 20 Cal. 3d 25, 48 (197); Ketchum v. Moses, 24 Cal. 4th at 1131-32 (2001). The lodestar is 20 the “basic fee for comparable legal services in the community,” which may be adjusted according to 21 factors present in the case, including: “(1) the novelty and difficulty of the questions involved, (2) the 22 skill displayed in presenting them, (3) the extent to which the nature of the litigation precluded other 23 employment by the attorneys, [and] (4) the contingent nature of the fee award.” Ketchum, 24 Cal. 4th 24 at 1132 (2001). “The purpose of such adjustment is to fix a fee at the fair market value for the 25 particular action. In effect, the court determines, retrospectively, whether the litigation…required 26 extraordinary legal skill justifying augmentation of the unadorned lodestar in order to approximate the 27 28 7 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 fair market rate for such services.” Courts have “wide latitude in determining the amount of an award 2 of attorneys’ fees.” Montgomery v. Bio-Med Specialties, Inc., 183 Cal. App. 3d 1292, 1297 (1986). 3 a. Sutter Home’s Attorneys’ Hourly Rates are Reasonable. 4 For purposes of determining the lodestar figure, “[t]he reasonable hourly rate is that prevailing 5 in the community for similar work.” PLCM Group, Inc. v. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th 1084, 1095 (2000); 6 see also Nemecek & Cole v. Horn, 208 Cal. App. 4th 641, 651 (2012) (“The reasonable market value 7 of the attorney’s services is the measure of a reasonable hourly rate.”) This is true even irrespective 8 of whether the party seeking fees was actually charged for the legal services or was charged below 9 market rates. Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th at 1094-95; Mandel v. Lackner, 92 Cal. App. 3 747, 761 (1979) 10 (“The value of any attorney’s time generally is reflected in his normal billing rate”). 11 The hourly rates charged by Littler Mendelson, P.C., Sutter Home’s attorneys in the 12 interpleader action, are reasonable in light of the experience of counsel, the quality of work performed, 13 and the hourly rates charged by attorneys at similar firms in San Francisco. See Horsford v. Board of 14 Trustees of Calif. State Univ., 132 Cal. App. 4th 359, 398-399 (2005). Between October 2020 and the 15 date of the filing of this motion, the reasonable and customary billing rate of the Litter Mendelson 16 attorneys representing Sutter Home in this action ranged from $495 to $945 per hour, depending on 17 level and experience. (Norton Decl. ¶¶ 41). However, while Sutter Home is entitled to request its 18 counsel’s full billing rate (see Drexler, 22 Cal. 4th at 1094-95), Sutter Home solely seeks to recover 19 the rates actually charged in prosecuting its interpleader claim, which range from $225.00 to $652.00 20 per hour. (Id.). 21 Due to the complex nature of Sutter Home’s interpleader claim, Littler Mendelson, P.C. was 22 required to engage paralegal assistance in prosecuting the interpleader. A party may recover for time 23 spent by paralegals and case clerks, compensable at market rates, if the local practice is to bill for their 24 services in such a manner. See Guinn v. Dotson, 23 Cal. App. 4th 262, 268 (1994). The local practice 25 in San Francisco and Napa Counties is to bill clients for work performed by paralegals and case clerks. 26 (Norton Decl. ¶ 42). Therefore, Sutter Home should recover its fees for the work performed by its 27 paralegals and case clerk. 28 8 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 Between October 2020 and the date of the filing of this motion, the reasonable and customary 2 billing rate of the paralegals and case clerks Littler Mendelson engaged in representing Sutter Home 3 as to its interpleader claim ranged from $275 to $475 per hour. (Id.). However, Sutter Home only 4 seeks to recover the rate actually charged for paralegal assistance, which was $95 per hour. Id. 5 b. The Time Expended by Sutter Home’s Counsel Is Reasonable. 6 All hours reasonably expended in litigating a matter are generally compensable. See MBNA 7 Am. Bank v. Gorman, 147 Cal. App. 4th Supp. 1, 12 (2006) (party may recover attorneys’ fees for 8 drafting and revising pleadings, legal research and briefing, conferring with opposing counsel and 9 clients, and preparing and attending hearings); Evans v. Unkow, 38 Cal. App. 4th 1490, 1499 (1995) 10 (a statute allowing recovery of attorney fees at trial also authorizes attorneys fees on appeal); Flannery, 11 5 Cal. App. 5th at 487 (fees for seeking discharge from an interpleader action are recoverable). This 12 includes time spent pursuing unsuccessful legal theories. “Litigants in good faith may raise alternative 13 legal grounds for a desired outcome, and the court’s rejection of or failure to reach certain grounds is 14 not a sufficient reason for reducing a fee. The result is what matters.” Sundance v. Mun.Ct., 192 Cal. 15 App. 3d 268, 273-274 (1987) (internal quotes omitted). 16 Sutter Home has expended a considerable amount of time in maintaining the interpleader 17 action. This is primarily due to Siri’s refusal to recognize that Sutter Home was no longer an interested 18 party in the action, and failure to adhere to the settlement terms and dismiss her claims against Sutter 19 Home. Because of Siri’s actions, Sutter Home expended substantial resources in filing the interpleader 20 claim, as well as seeking to enforce the settlement, fighting Siri’s appeal, and, ultimately, successfully 21 attaining summary judgment and summary adjudication declaring the parties entered into an 22 enforceable settlement agreement, resulting in the dismissal of Siri’s claims – all of which was in 23 furtherance of the interpleader. See Akins v. Enter. Rent-A-Car Co. of San Francisco, 79 Cal. App. 24 4th 1127, 1133 (2000) (“the joinder of causes of action should not dilute the right to attorney fees. 25 Such fees need not be apportioned when incurred for representation of an issue common to both a 26 cause of action for which fees are permitted and one for which they are not. All expenses incurred on 27 the common issues qualify for an award”). 28 9 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 In total, Sutter Home expended 1,392.10 hours in billable time since October of 2020, when it 2 prepared and filed the interpleader cross-complaint, (Norton Decl. ¶ 43), and incurred $355,710.50 in 3 attorneys’ fees in prosecuting the interpleader, including the time spent requesting that the Court 4 enforce the settlement reached between Siri and Sutter Home. (Id.) Sutter Home also estimates it will 5 spend an additional $7,368.50 in attorneys’ fees for the preparation and filing of this Motion and it’s 6 Memorandum of Costs, and arguing this Motion at the hearing. (Id. ¶ 44). Sutter Home’s defense 7 attorneys and staff recorded and documented their time contemporaneously or within a reasonable 8 time thereafter to ensure accuracy. (Norton Decl. ¶ 43). All the time spent by Sutter Home’s counsel 9 has been reasonable given the complex nature of the interpleader, including the contentious and 10 prolonged motion practice and appeal due to Siri’s attacks on the enforceability of her settlement with 11 Sutter Home. As these attacks on the settlement directly relate to the propriety of Sutter Home’s 12 interpleader claim, Sutter Home was hindered in its ability to be discharged from the interpleader 13 cross-action until the Court found the settlement to be binding and enforceable. See S. Cal. Gas Co. 14 v. Flannery, 5 Cal.App.5th 476 (2016) (California Code of Civil section 386.6(a) “gives the trial court 15 authority to award attorney fees to the [stakeholder] for fees and costs incurred not only to initiate the 16 Interpleader Case and obtain discharge, but also to defend against subsequent motions, writ petitions, 17 and appeals attacking the validity of the interpleader complaint and discharge order”); see also Hensley 18 v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 431 (1983)(citing Davis v. County of Los Angeles, 8 E.P.D. ¶ 9444 (C.D. 19 Cal. 1974)) (the appropriate number of hours includes “all time reasonably expended in pursuit of the 20 ultimate result achieved in the same manner that an attorney traditionally is compensated by a fee- 21 paying client for all time reasonably expended on a matter”). 22 23 /// 24 25 /// 26 27 28 10 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA 1 IV. CONCLUSION 2 Based on the foregoing, Sutter Home respectfully requests that the Court discharge it from any 3 liability in this action , dismiss it with prejudice from this interpleader action pursuant to California 4 Code of Civil Procedure section 385.6, and award Sutter Home attorneys’ fees in the sum of 5 $363,079.00 for prosecuting the interpleader action. 6 7 Dated: February 9, 2024 LITTLER MENDELSON, P.C. 8 9 10 Constance E. Norton Lisa Lin Garcia 11 Lee E. Sheldon Tiana R. Harding 12 Attorneys for Defendant, Cross-Complainant, 13 and Cross-Defendant SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC. dba 14 TRINCHERO FAMILY ESTATES 15 4872-6447-0431.9 / 071749-1001 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 LITTLER MENDELSON, CROSS-COMPLAINANT SUTTER HOME WINERY, INC.’S MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND P.C. 101 Second Street AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR AN ORDER DISCHARGING IT FROM LIABILITY, Suite 1000 DISMISSING IT FROM THE INTERPLEADER ACTION, AND AWARDING IT ATTORNEYS’ FEES San Francisco, CA