DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV2024-2015·yolo·Civil·Interpleader
Hearing 13 days agoGRANTED

Acclaim Mobility LLC v. Derkach

motion for return of interpleader funds

Hearing date
Aug 11, 2026
Department
Thirteen
Judge
Prevailing
Defendant
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffAcclaim Mobility LLC
DefendantViktor Derkach

Ruling

Case: Acclaim Mobility LLC v. Derkach Case No. CV2024-2015 Hearing Date: August 11, 2026 Department Thirteen 9:00 a.m.

The Court proposes to take judicial notice of the following records contained in the Court’s own file: plaintiff Acclaim Mobility LLC’s interpleader complaint, filed on August 8, 2024; defendant Viktor Derkach’s interpleader answer, filed on June 2, 2025; interpleader plaintiff Acclaim Mobility LLC’s memorandum of points and authorities in support of motion for order discharging stakeholder and for related orders, filed on November 10, 2025; and the Court’s order on motion for order discharging stakeholder and related orders, filed January 13, 2026. (Evid.

Code, §§ 452, subd. (d), 455, subd. (a).) The Court shall afford each party reasonable opportunity before the cause is submitted for decision by the Court to present to the Court information relevant to: (1) the propriety of taking judicial notice of the matter; and (2) the tenor of the matter to be noticed. (Evid. Code, § 455, subd. (a); see also Motion, Exhibits A-C.)

Defendant Viktor Derkach’s unopposed motion for return of interpleader funds is GRANTED. (Code Civ. Proc., § 386.)

If no hearing is requested, this tentative ruling is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.

2 of 6

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