Dang

Dang v. Pontier

Good Law
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaDecember 15, 20203:19-cv-01519California1,688 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH DANG d/b/a LAW OFFICE OF Case No.: 19CV1519-GPC(AHG) JOSEPH DANG, an individual,

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S

Plaintiff, MOTION FOR INTERPLEADER v. DISCHARGE AND INTERPLEADER

DISBURSEMENT

DAVID PONTIER, an individual; 15 TEOCO Corporation Group Benefit Plan, [Dkt. No. 110.] a self-funded group health plan; TEOCO Corporation, a Delaware Corporation; 17 UMR Inc., a Delaware Corporation; Glenn C. Nusbaum, an individual; Paul E. Kim, MD Inc., A California corporation; Kevin 19 Yoo, an individual, 20 Defendants.

22 Before the Court is Plaintiff Joseph Dang’s (“Dang”) motion for interpleader 23 discharge and interpleader distribution to Defendant David Pontier (“Pontier”), the sole 24 remaining defendant, of $32,764.62 and any interest deposited into the Court’s Interest 25 Bearing-Registry Account and invested in the Court Registry Investment System. (Dkt. 26 No. 110.) Pontier filed an opposition and Dang filed a reply. (Dkt. Nos 139, 145.) 27 28 Based…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.