DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
212·orange·Civil·Interpleader
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

Law Offices of Joseph P. McGinley vs. Falck Mobile Health, Inc.

Motion Directing Interpleading of Funds

Hearing date
Jul 6, 2026
Department
C24
Prevailing
Plaintiff

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$42,673.35$7,436.70

Parties

PlaintiffLaw Offices of Joseph B. McGinley
DefendantFalck Mobile Health, Inc.

Ruling

Accordingly, the hearing on the motion is CONTINUED to August 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24 to allow plaintiff to correct the deficiencies listed hereing. All further documents must be filed not less than 14 calendar days prior to the continued hearing date.

Additionally, the hearing on the Order to Show Cause as to why the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to serve the defendant as required by Rule 3.110 is CONTINUED to August 17, 2026 at 1:30 p.m. in Dept. C24. Any evidence submitted in response to the OSC is required to be filed 14 calendar days prior to the hearing.

212 Law Offices of Before the court is an unopposed Motion Directing Joseph P. Interpleading of Funds (Motion) filed by plaintiff McGinley vs. Law Offices of Joseph B. McGinley (Plaintiff). The Falck Mobile Motion is GRANTED. Health, Inc. Plaintiff was in possession of $42,673.35 in settlement funds (Funds) related to the underlying motor vehicle accident matter; the Funds have now been deposited with the court. (Ferrell Decl. ¶ 8, Ex. A.) Plaintiff states there are conflicting demands on the Funds and Plaintiff has applied to the court for an order discharging it from liability and dismissing it from the action. (Code of Civil Procedure section 386.5.)

Plaintiff stated by affidavit that it has no interest in the Funds. (Ferrell Decl. ¶ 7.) As the Funds have been deposited with the clerk of the court, the court will grant Plaintiff’s request and discharge Plaintiff from liability regarding the Funds and dismiss Plaintiff from this action upon Plaintiff’s filing of notice of this ruling.

The court also grants Plaintiff’s request for reasonable attorney fees in the amount of $7,436.70, and directs the clerk to issue payment in that amount to Plaintiff out of the Funds. (Code of

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share