Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04522/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-04522-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 29:1001 E.R.I.S.A.: Employee Retirement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAKEBREAD CELLARS, INC. 401(K) 

PLAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

MARIA GONZALEZ, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-04522-JD 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S 

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES 

AND COSTS

Re: Dkt. No. 23

Plaintiff Cakebread Cellars, Inc. 401(K) Plan filed this interpleader action “to determine 

entitlement to the proceeds of a 401(K) Plan” as between a husband and wife who have since 

divorced. Dkt. No. 1. As of November 2008, Martin Martinez’s interest in the 401(K) Plan was 

valued at $9,382.19. Id. ¶ 10. Before the Court is plaintiff’s motion for attorneys’ fees and 

expenses. Dkt. No. 23. The motion is premature, and the Court denies it on that basis. 

The Court previously expressly directed plaintiff Cakebread Cellars Inc. 401(K) Plan “to 

pursue whatever relief it wishes to have in this interpleader action by making a proper request to 

the Court by way of a motion.” Dkt. No. 20. The Court advised counsel that “[m]erely including 

requests in a complaint or a case management conference statement does not suffice.” Id.

Yet, somewhat incredibly, plaintiff has not filed a motion to deposit the funds at issue into 

the Court’s registry, nor has it filed a proper motion for discharge in this interpleader action. 

Instead, the only substantive motion plaintiff has filed to date is the present one for attorneys’ fees 

and expenses. Dkt. No. 23. Plaintiff’s own motion shows that an award of fees and costs would 

be premature and improper in this circumstance. See id. at 3 (“To recoup attorneys’ fees and 

costs, a court must find (1) a disinterested stakeholder, (2) who has conceded liability, (3) has 

deposited the funds into court, and (4) has sought discharge from liability.”) (citing cases; 

Case 3:15-cv-04522-JD Document 26 Filed 09/20/16 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

emphases added). Although plaintiff states that it “has requested that the funds be deposited with 

the Court and that it be discharged from liability,” id. at 3, the Court’s docket for this case shows 

no indication of either request.

The Court further notes for the benefit of guidance to plaintiff that any renewed motion for 

fees should be significantly revised. The current motion seeks a fee award of $8,740.00, which 

would all but swallow up the $9,382.19 at issue.1 That kind of request is plainly inconsistent with

the Court’s previous instruction that any motion for fees in this case should be efficiently prepared 

and succinctly made, because in cases like these, “there is an important policy interest in seeing 

that the fee award does not deplete the fund at the expense of the party who is ultimately deemed 

entitled to it.” Dkt. No. 20 (quoting Trustees of Directors Guild of Am.-Producer Pension Benefits 

Plans v. Tise, 234 F.3d 415, 427 (9th Cir.), opinion amended on denial of reh’g, 255 F.3d 661 (9th 

Cir. 2000)). 

Plaintiff’s motion is consequently denied without prejudice to renewal consistent with this 

order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 20, 2016

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge

 

1 Another issue is that this $9,382.19 amount that plaintiff uses is based on a valuation done in 

November 2008. Dkt. No. 1 ¶ 10. That is close to 8 years ago.

Case 3:15-cv-04522-JD Document 26 Filed 09/20/16 Page 2 of 2