Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in California

What Is an Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice?

“It is common practice... to permit upon request an attorney holding a license to practice law from one state to appear in the courts of a sister state, and there take part in the trial of an action pending in said courts.” (In re Application of McCue (1930) 211 Cal. 57, 67.)

“A person who is not a member of the State Bar of California but who is a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state, may in the discretion of such court be permitted upon written application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, provided that an active member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record. No person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule if the person is:

  1. A resident of the State of California;
  2. Regularly employed in the State of California; or
  3. Regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.”

(Cal. Rules of Ct. 9.40(a).)

If the applicant is permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice, he or she is “subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California.” (Cal. Rules of Ct. 9.40(f).) Additionally, “[t]he counsel pro hac vice must familiarize himself or herself and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California and will be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar with respect to any of his or her acts occurring in the course of such appearance.” (Id.)

The Application

“A person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail.” (Cal. Rules of Ct. 9.40(c)(1).)

“The application must state:

  1. The applicant's residence and office address;
  2. The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission;
  3. That the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts;
  4. That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court;
  5. The title of court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and
  6. The name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.”

(Cal. Rules of Ct. 9.40(d).)

Copies of the application and of the notice of hearing on the application must be served by mail upon all parties who have appeared in the cause, and also upon the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. (Cal. Rules of Ct. 9.40(c).)

A judge’s determination of whether to grant an application to appear pro hac vice is evaluated under the abuse of discretion standard. (Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Super. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, 711.) Appearance pro hac vice is a privilege and not a right under the United States Constitution. (Leis v. Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438, 441.)

“Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.” (Cal. Rules of Ct. 9.40(b); Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (ESQ Business Services Inc.) (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 128.) Nevertheless, there are no hard and fast rules on the number of times an out-of-state attorney may appear pro hac vice. (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (ESQ Business Services Inc.) (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 128.)

Fee

“An applicant for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule must pay a reasonable fee not exceeding $50 to the State Bar of California with the copy of the application and the notice of hearing that is served on the State Bar.” (Cal. Rules of Ct. 9.40(e).)

Rulings for Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in California

Levy filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant XL Specialty Insurance Company. On January 10, 2023, Leslie S. Ahari filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant XL Specialty Insurance Company. On January 11, 2023, Scott N. Godes filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiffs DigitalBridge Group, Inc.

  • Name

    DIGITALBRIDGE GROUP, INC. (F/K/A COLONY CAPITAL, INC.), A CORPORATION, ET AL. VS XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV35339

  • Hearing

    Mar 15, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1.Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 2.Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 3.Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 4.Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 5.Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice The pro hac vice applications of Adam Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason Dennett, Kim Stephens, and Paul Peel are granted.

  • Name

    VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01049612-CU-BT-CXC

  • Hearing

    Jul 19, 2019

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Howard McPherson 2. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John T. O’Connell Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice (John O’ Connell): The Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice, brought on behalf of John T. O’Connell is CONTINUED to November 13, 2020. The Court requests a Supplemental Declaration from Mr. O’Connell, which identifies any applications to appear pro hac vice, within the last 2 years.

  • Name

    BROOKS VS PADI WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01119291

  • Hearing

    Oct 01, 2020

*TENTATIVE RULING:* The application for admission pro hac vice is approved.

  • Name

    SAPHINA ELLIS VS. GRAVES DEANNA

  • Case No.

    C22-01781

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2023

  • County

    Contra Costa County, CA

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Defendant Woodard; Order admitting John M. Kelly, Esq. to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Woodward, Inc. Defendant Woodward, Inc.’s Application to Appoint Attorney John M. Kelly, Esq. as counsel pro hac vice is GRANTED. Defendant has met the requirements of CRC, Rule 9.40. (See Declaration of Kelly, ¶¶ 2-9, Exh. A.) Moving Attorney to give Notice. 3. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Defendant Woodard; Order admitting Gina M.

  • Name

    MORAN-GREEN VS. WEST COAST AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01045760

  • Hearing

    Oct 21, 2019

The Court finds/orders: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (CLM) Verified Application by Matthew J Ruza for Approval to Appear Pro Hac Vice continued to 12/08/2022 at 08:20 AM in department 21. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (CLM) Verified Application by John A Ybarra for Approval to Appear Pro Hac Vice continued to 12/08/2022 at 08:20 AM in department 21.

  • Case No.

    2022-00562834

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2022

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice – Howard G. McPherson 2. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice – John T. O’Connell Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice: The Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice, brought on behalf of John T. O’Connell is GRANTED, as the subject Application fully complies with CRC 9.40. Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice: The Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice, brought on behalf of Howard G. McPherson is GRANTED, as the subject Application fully complies with CRC 9.40.

  • Name

    BROOKS VS PADI WORLDWIDE CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01119291

  • Hearing

    Nov 01, 2020

Katz to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice ; (2) Verified Application of Peter M. Sartorius to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice ; (3) Verified Application of Sahand Farahati to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice ; and (4) Verified Application of Joseph B. Weiner to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice . No oppositions or other responses have been filed to any of the Applications.

  • Name

    BIG BUS TOURS LOS ANGELES, INC. VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22STCV14150

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Conditioned upon the payment of the $500 pro hac vice fee, the application of Attorney Thomas A. Brown II to appear pro hac vice as counsel for Defendant Paul Falzone is GRANTED.

  • Name

    DE CONSULTING GROUP, INC., A CALIFORIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS YOKOHAMA VENTURES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV18018

  • Hearing

    Oct 02, 2020

Stadco LA, LLC, et al. 20STCV29265 Karla Becerra, et al.’s Application for Admission of Jorge Mares as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Karla Becerra, et al.’s Application for Admission of Rebecca Page as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Karla Becerra, et al.’s Application for Admission of Frank Guerra, IV, as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Karla Becerra, et al.’s Application for Admission of Miguel Salazar, as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Karla Becerra, et al.’s Application for Admission of Mikal White, as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

  • Name

    MIRNA ONTIVEROS SOTO, ET AL. VS STADCO LA, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV29265

  • Hearing

    Jun 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

[Tentative] Order RE: (1) application of kevin a. fritz to appear as counsel pro hac vice (2) application of jeffrey p. weingart to appear as counsel pro hac vice (3) application of mitchell schuster to appear as counsel pro hac vice MOVING PARTY: Applicant Kevin A. Fritz RESPONDING PARTY: n/a (1) Application of Kevin A. Fritz to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice MOVING PARTY: Applicant Jeffrey P.

  • Name

    KIARI CEPHUS, ET AL. VS QUALITY CONTROL MUSIC, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY

  • Case No.

    22STCV27458

  • Hearing

    Feb 02, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

The Court finds/orders: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (CLM) of David J Cutshaw for Pro Hac Vice Admission continued to 06/16/2022 at 08:20 AM in department 43. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (CLM) Verified Unopposed Application of Barry D Rooth for Pro Hac Vice Admission continued to 06/16/2022 at 08:20 AM in department 43.

  • Case No.

    2022-00562866

  • Hearing

    May 18, 2022

  • County

    Ventura County, CA

This Tentative Ruling is made by Judge Noël Wise Defendants' Application for Christina Pyle Engle to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is DENIED. According to Ms. Engle's declaration, she has been admitted as counsel pro hac vice in two other cases since November 19, 2020, with another application for pro hac vice admission pending in a third case. Absent special circumstances, repeated pro hac vice appearances by any attorney is grounds for denial of a pro hac vice application.

  • Name

    ORDONEZ-CASTELLON VS AEROTEK, INC

  • Case No.

    RG19045302

  • Hearing

    Feb 06, 2021

  • Judge

    Noël Wise

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Attorney Toporovsky's unopposed Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for the Honig Defendants is GRANTED. (ROA 154.) Attorney Sommer's unopposed Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for the Honig Defendants is GRANTED. (ROA 158.) Attorney Rollnick's unopposed Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. (ROA 115.) Attorney Richard's unopposed Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED. (ROA 118.)

  • Name

    MABVAX THERAPEUTICS HOLDINGS INC VS HONING

  • Case No.

    37-2019-00018398-CU-SL-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice - Applicant Michael Angelovich The Court finds that Applicant Michael Angelovich has complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. The application by Michael Angelovich to be admitted pro hac vice to appear on behalf of Plaintiffs Neal and Jaye Eigler is GRANTED. The Court enters the proposed order filed by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs to give notice. 2. Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice - Applicant Bradley W. BeskinThe Court finds that Applicant Bradley W.

  • Name

    NEAL L. EIGLER, ET AL. VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV40675

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2020

1) Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice 2) Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice In its 10/14/2020 Minute Order, the Court GRANTED the Amended Unopposed Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Brian K. Brake and the Unopposed Verified Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Tayjes M. Shah, Esq. to appear pro hac vice in this action on behalf of Plaintiff Anabella Nguyen, associated with attorney Curtis Hoke, California SBN 282465.

  • Name

    NGUYEN V. LAI

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01044968

  • Hearing

    Oct 19, 2020

RULING : Granted Defendant Dometic Corporation moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Zackary Rogers. Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To be admitted pro hac vice, one must be a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States. ( California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  • Name

    JENNIFER BAILEY, ET AL. VS DOMETIC CORPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CHCV00871

  • Hearing

    Nov 30, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Phillips to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Defendant Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Specially Appearing Defendants Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG and Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH; 8. Application of James B. Matthews, III, to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice on behalf of Plaintiff The People of the State of California; 9. Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Robert D.

  • Name

    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00914577-CU-BT-CXC

  • Hearing

    Oct 06, 2017

Blum to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice that defendant Zoetis has lodged with the Court.

  • Name

    CALFTECH CORPORATION V. ZOETIS

  • Case No.

    VCU 273468

  • Hearing

    Dec 13, 2018

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA HG21109171: Singh VS Blue Creek Capital, LLC 01/03/2022 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in Department 19 Tentative Ruling The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Rakhi Singh, Nitesh Singh on 12/01/2021 is Granted. Plaintiffs Rakhi and Nitesh Singhs’ Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Joseph D. Sibley IV (“Pro Hac Vice Applicant”), filed November 29, 2021, is GRANTED.

  • Name

    SINGH VS BLUE CREEK CAPITAL, LLC

  • Case No.

    HG21109171

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2022

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Ross 3/6/2019 .................. 18-2642 Valencia Pro Hac Vice 3/13/2019 Edward Baines applies to appear as counsel pro hac vice to represent Defendant Mannington Mills Inc. Having read and considered the written motion, the court issues the following tentative ruling: No opposition has been filed. The application appears sufficient in all respects. The application of Edward Baines to appear pro hac vice is granted. Ross 3/6/2019

  • Name

    ESTATE OF IMELDA VALENCIA ET AL. VS TARGET CORPORATION ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UPI-2018-0002642

  • Hearing

    Mar 12, 2019

Watkins ("Pro Hac Vice Applicants") to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice are GRANTED. The Court finds that attorney Pro Hac Vice Applicants meet all of the requirements for admission set forth in California Rule of Court rule 9.40. Plaintiff has paid the $500 fee for each application ($1,000 in total) as required by Government Code section 70617, subdivision (e)(1).

  • Name

    KYTCH, INC. VS GAMBLE

  • Case No.

    RG21099155

  • Hearing

    Aug 23, 2021

Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice - Kurt A. Offner After consideration of the Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice of Kurt A. Offner, filed on October 8, 2021, and the Supplemental Verified Application of Kurt A. Offner attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Mark J. Bloom, filed on January 4, 2021, the Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice of Kurt A. Offner is GRANTED. Plaintiff to give notice. 2.

  • Name

    NATURE'S PRODUCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CHUBB AGRIBUSINESS, A CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV17267

  • Hearing

    Jan 06, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1) Application to Admit Adrian Zareba Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Laguna Cookie Company, Inc., and D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc. 2) Application to Admit Gretchen Woodruff Root Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Laguna Cookie Company Inc., and D. F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc. 3) Application to Admit Thomas G Collins Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Laguna Cookie Company, Inc., and D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc. 4) Status Conference The unopposed applications of Thomas G.

  • Name

    MENDOZA VS. LAGUNA COOKIE COMPANY, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01107762

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2020

1) Application to Admit Adrian Zareba Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Laguna Cookie Company, Inc., and D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc. 2) Application to Admit Gretchen Woodruff Root Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Laguna Cookie Company Inc., and D. F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc. 3) Application to Admit Thomas G Collins Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Laguna Cookie Company, Inc., and D.F. Stauffer Biscuit Co., Inc. 4) Status Conference The unopposed applications of Thomas G.

  • Name

    MENDOZA VS. LAGUNA COOKIE COMPANY, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01107762

  • Hearing

    Jun 25, 2020

Whitt to Appear Pro Hac Vice is granted. Counsel are reminded that an attorney whose application to appear as counsel pro hac vice has been granted shall pay to the superior court, on or before the anniversary of the date the application was granted, an annual renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that the attorney maintains pro hac vice status in the case. (Government Code section 70617, subdivision (e)(2).)

  • Name

    VERL VOGEL VS. FCA US LLC

  • Case No.

    37-2017-00024229-CU-PA-CTL

  • Hearing

    Sep 19, 2019

Clausen's unopposed Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs is GRANTED. (ROA 304.) As to Attorney Travis Romero-Boeck's unopposed Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant, the court will hear this matter. (ROA 301.) Attorney Romero-Boeck's verified application states he has been admitted as counsel pro hac vice in one other California case in the last two years.

  • Name

    CHRYSTAL VS. HARLEY DAVIDSON INC

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00044978-CU-PL-NC

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

Sartorius to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice and the Verified Application of Sahand Farahati to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice .

  • Name

    STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. VS BIG BUS TOURS LOS ANGELES, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV36480

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

.: 19STCV04166 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION Date: June 12, 2019 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 The Court has considered the moving, opposition, and reply papers. BACKGROUND Joel Glover applies to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants. DISCUSSION The Court finds that the cases cited by Plaintiff in her opposition to the pro hac vice application of Joel Glover are distinguishable and do not apply to the pro hac vice application of Joel Glover.

  • Name

    ROBERTO DELGADILLO, ET AL. VS ROMAN VARGAS, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV04166

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2019

RULING : Granted Plaintiff moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Rick Freeman. Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To be admitted pro hac vice, one must be a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States. ( California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  • Name

    CYNTHIA CONE VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    BC697445

  • Hearing

    Nov 17, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiffs' unopposed Application of Jennifer Mondino to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is granted. Plaintiffs' unopposed Application of Emily Martin to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is granted. Plaintiffs' unopposed Application of Sunu Chandy to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is granted.

  • Name

    PIEPER VS CABLECONN INDUSTRIES INC

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00030894-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Oct 15, 2020

1) Motion for Leave to File Cross-Complaint – continued at parties’ request to 1/4/2021 at 1:30 p.m. in Department C32 2) Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Heller) 3) Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Thompson) 4) Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (Detzel) Pro Hac Vice Motions: The Court grants the Applications by Sandra L. Heller, Esq., Darcie Thompson, Esq., and C. Matthew Detzel, Esq. to Appear Pro Hac Vice as Co-Counsel for Defendants. Each Applicant meets the requirements of California Rules of Court 9.40.

  • Name

    SPENCER RECOVERY CENTERS FLORIDA, INC. V. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00958127

  • Hearing

    Dec 14, 2020

Enriquez establishes that she satisfied the requirements to appear as counsel pro hac vice pursuant to CRC, Rule 9.40. The court therefore GRANTS Maria G. Enriquezs application to appear as counsel pro hac vice. As to Daniel I. Schlessingers pro hac vice application, Mr.

  • Name

    MICKEY BEARMAN COMPANY VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV26655

  • Hearing

    Mar 28, 2024

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Bonaiuto to Appear Pro Hac Vice {C.R.C.9.40} 2) Verified Application of Non-Resident Attorney D. Greg Blankinship to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice {C.R.C.9.40} 3) Verified Application of Non-Resident Attorney Joseph C. Hashmall to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice {C.R.C.9.40} 4) Verified Application of Non-Resident Attorney E. Mitchell Drake to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice {C.R.R.9.40} Applications to Appear Pro Hac Vice of (1) Joseph C. Hashmall; (2) Michelle Drake; (3) D.

  • Name

    DOLAR VS MOPHIE, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01066228

  • Hearing

    Jun 14, 2019

MOTION Notice Of Motion And Moiton To Appear Pro Hac Vice;Verified Application And Order To Appear Pro Hac Vice; DEFENDANT STATFORD CAREER INSTITUTE MOTION To Appear Pro Hac Vice;Verified Application And Order To Appear Pro Hac Vice; GRANT.(302/REQ/JU)

  • Name

    TRADE SCHOOL REVIEW ASSOCIATION VS. STATFORD CAREER INSTITUTE ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC02411230

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2003

RULING : Granted Plaintiff Jade Mendez moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Lori Bullock. Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To be admitted pro hac vice, one must be a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States. ( California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  • Name

    JADE MENDEZ VS FALCON PICTURES, LLC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00628

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Rubin's unopposed Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals is GRANTED. (ROA 478.) As to Attorney Matthew J. Malinowski's unopposed Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Novartis, the court will hear this matter. (ROA 465.) Attorney Malinowski's verified application states he has been admitted as counsel pro hac vice in two other California cases in the last two years.

  • Name

    HAMILTON VS. ASTRAZENECA

  • Case No.

    37-2013-00070440-CU-MM-CTL

  • Hearing

    Jan 09, 2020

Interinsurance Exchange CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Breach of Contract/Warranty EVENT TYPE: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (CLM) Verified Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice MOVING PARTY: Mariglo Esherick CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Verified Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice, 10/28/2022 APPEARANCES David J Furtado, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s) telephonically.

  • Case No.

    2020-00547614

  • Hearing

    Nov 23, 2022

Wilford to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice and the Verified Application of Anthony J. DAgostino to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice .

  • Name

    NOAH MEINER, ET AL. VS ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV46412

  • Hearing

    Dec 06, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Erdreich appear pro hac vice in the current matter. The Declaration of Ryan L Erdreich contains all the required information, except the title of court in which the applicant has filed an application to appear pro hac vice in this state. The Declaration of Jeffrey M. Malsch does not contain two required statements: the applicants residence and the title of court in which the applicant has filed an application to appear pro hac vice in this state.

  • Name

    TRAVIS WALTON ET AL VS REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC723793

  • Hearing

    Mar 03, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Wilford to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice and the Verified Application of Anthony J. DAgostino to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice .

  • Name

    NOAH MEINER, ET AL. VS ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV46412

  • Hearing

    Dec 07, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Motions Plaintiffs bring two motions for counsel to appear pro hac vice, the Motion for Molly M. Jamison to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice and Motion for Kirsten Jackson to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice. According to California Rule of Court (“CRC”) 9.40, an attorney must meet 3 requirements to appear pro hac vice.

  • Name

    SONOMA BRANDS II, L.P. VS GUAYAKI YERBA MATE, S.P.C.

  • Case No.

    SCV-272147

  • Hearing

    Apr 05, 2023

  • County

    Sonoma County, CA

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Re: Kaitlin Beach 2. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Re: Steven M Tarina 3. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Re: Katherine Turner 4. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Re: Kathryn Hoover Reassigned to Judge Nakamura, CX103

  • Name

    PURCELL VS. POTRATZ

  • Case No.

    30-2019-01115653

  • Hearing

    Jan 01, 2021

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE Amy E. Davis with Christiansen Davis, LLC seeks to be admitted pro hac vice to represent Plaintiff Ann Wang in this action. Nicole M. Battisti and Arthur J. Liederman with Morrison & Mahoney, LLP seek to be admitted pro hac vice to represent Defendants Inmode, Ltd. and Invasix, Inc. in this action.

  • Name

    ANNA WANG VS WAVE PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV07171

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

Plaintiff moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Derek Braslow. Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To be admitted pro hac vice, one must be “ a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States.” ( California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  • Name

    JANE DOE VS DOE 1 - SCHOOL, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV42337

  • Hearing

    May 20, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

Appearance pro hac vice is a privilege and not a right under the United States Constitution. (Leis v. Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438, 441.)

  • Name

    DIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, ET AL. VS OSCAR HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    22SMCV02192

  • Hearing

    Sep 29, 2023

  • Judge

    11/28/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

On confirmation of such service, the tentative ruling is as follows: The Verified Application of Attorney Josef Glynias to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendants is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40.) The Verified Application of Attorney Laura Malugade to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendants is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40.) The Verified Application of Attorney Keith Ybanez to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendants is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40.)

  • Name

    ORTUNO VS THE HERTZ CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    37-2022-00006731-CU-OE-CTL

  • Hearing

    Dec 20, 2023

  • County

    San Diego County, CA

Filuschs application to appear pro hac vice . The Court GRANTS Claiborne R. Hanes application to appear pro hac vice . The Court GRANTS Michael A. Hanins application to appear pro hac vice . The Court GRANTS Andrew L. Schwartzs application to appear pro hac vice . I.

  • Name

    CAIS CAPITAL, LLC VS MREC MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV08807

  • Hearing

    May 26, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Weiner’s Applications to Appear Pro Hac Vice without prejudice.

  • Name

    STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. VS BIG BUS TOURS LOS ANGELES, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV36480

  • Hearing

    Sep 15, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Applications to Appear Pro Hac Vice Cal.

  • Name

    MANSOUREH SOLTANI, ET AL. VS FOOTHILL AIRCRAFT SALES & SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV39704

  • Hearing

    Jun 26, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Cal.

  • Name

    LISA HU VS DANIEL SHAW, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20TRCV00812

  • Hearing

    Jan 13, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

.: BC662838 ORDER RE: AMENDED APPLICATIONS TO BE ADMITTED AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE Date: November 5, 2020 Time: 8:30 a.m. Dept. 56 MOVING PARTIES: Neil G. Nandi (“Nandi”) and Jason P. Stiehl (“Stiehl”) Nandi and Stiehl filed separate amended applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff and Cross-Defendant Don Lee Farms (“DLF”). APPLICATION OF NANDI The pro hac vice application of Nandi is compliant with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.

  • Name

    DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC

  • Case No.

    BC662838

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of David J. Cooner The unopposed application by David J. Cooner to appear as counsel pro hac vice for defendant C.R. Bard Access Systems, Inc. (sued as Doe 31) is GRANTED for good cause shown. The application complies with all requirements of rule 9.40 of the California Rules of Court. The Court will sign the proposed order submitted with the application. Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Zane C. Riester The unopposed application by Zane C.

  • Name

    BUDINA SMITH VS RICHARD ROBINSON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    17CV-00110

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2018

Coloplast corp CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: PI/PD/WD - Other EVENT TYPE: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (CLM) For an order Admitting Nathaniel Jones Pro Hac Vice MOVING PARTY: Daniel OConnell, Lori Peterson CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice For an order Admitting Nathaniel Jones Pro Hac Vice, 10/26/2022 APPEARANCES Michael P Cutler, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s) telephonically.

  • Case No.

    2014-00460210

  • Hearing

    Nov 18, 2022

This matter is on for hearing on two matters: (1) a Pro Hac Vice Application as to Attorney Rauvin Johl (2) a Pro Hac Vice Application as to Attorney Michael Heyison. Each is addressed, in turn, below. RULING ON PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION (as to Attorney Rauvin Johl) The Pro Hac Vice Application brought by defendant/cross-complainant Acacia Communications, Inc. (AC) as to admission of Attorney Rauvin Johl is DENIED without prejudice on procedural grounds.

  • Name

    VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.

  • Case No.

    37-2016-00002323-CU-BC-NC

  • Hearing

    Jan 23, 2020

Mainfreight Limited, et al. , 21STCV00887 Application for Renewal of Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Andrew R. Young Application for Renewal of Pro Hac Vice for Attorney D.J. Young III Application for Renewal of Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Stephanie A. Ball Moving Party Plaintiffs Susan Thoele, Benjamin Thoele, and Timothy Thoele I.

  • Name

    SUSAN THOELE, ET AL. VS MAINFREIGHT LIMITED, A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    21STCV00887

  • Hearing

    Apr 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the Verified Application to Appears as Counsel Pro Hac Vice .

  • Name

    STEVE KUH VS LEMONADE INSURANCE COMPANY

  • Case No.

    21STCV42586

  • Hearing

    Mar 29, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Plaintiff Greystone Loan Aggregator, LLC moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Keith Aurzada. Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To be admitted pro hac vice, one must be a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States. ( California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  • Name

    GREYSTONE LOAN AGGREGATOR, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MACLAY INVESTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CHCV00313

  • Hearing

    Jul 05, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Thompson to appear as counsel pro hac vice are denied without prejudice .

  • Name

    BHAGWATI DEVI BALDWA, ET AL. VS GOLI NUTRITION INC., A CANADIAN CORPORATION, NUMBER 1102849-9, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV18358

  • Hearing

    Nov 07, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

.: BC653918 DEFENDANTS MOTION TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE MOVING PARTY : Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center RESPONDING PARTY(S) : None as of November 29, 2022 REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An order granting the application for Nicole A. Eichberger to appear as counsel pro hac vice TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Motion to be Admitted pro hac vice is GRANTED.

  • Name

    HELENE G SAKELLIS VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC653918

  • Hearing

    Dec 02, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

1.MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE 2.MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE 3.MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE The Court grants the Applications of (1) Adam D. Lewis, (2) Kala F. Sellers, and (3) Jonathan Kyle Findley, to appear pro hac vice to represent the Plaintiff in the present case. The Court orders the MPs to give notice. Moving party to give notice.

  • Name

    RUSSELL VS. ACL TRUCKING, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00946455-CU-PA-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2018

.: 22STCV04913 DEFENDANTS APPLICATION TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE MOVING PARTY : Defendant Ninas Mexican Food RESPONDING PARTY(S): None as of July 22, 2022. REQUESTED RELIEF: 1. An order granting the application for Albert J. Bolet, III to appear as counsel pro hac vice TENTATIVE RULING: 1. Application to appear pro hac vice is GRANTED.

  • Name

    EDI BALDOMERO OSOY CHACON VS NINA'S MEXICAN FOOD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV04913

  • Hearing

    Jul 27, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Chandler to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice. Tentative Ruling: To grant the application of attorney Aaron M. Chandler to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for this action for defendants Marty Van Tassell, Vantage Dairy Supplies CA. LLC, Vantage Dairy Supplies of Idaho, Inc. and Central Valley Supply.

  • Name

    VCU 269295

  • Case No.

    Central Valley Supply, Inc. v. Vantage Dairy Supply LLC

  • Hearing

    Jan 11, 2018

Buck’s Verified Application for Admission to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice; (2) Johanna F. Parker’s Verified Application for Admission of to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice; and (3) Adam E. Primm’s Verified Application for Admission of to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice Tentative Rulings: To grant (1) Maynard A. Buck’s Verified Application for Admission to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice; (2) Johanna F.

  • Name

    VARGO V. PREGIS INNOVATIVE PACKAGING, LLC

  • Case No.

    VCU 270836

  • Hearing

    Jan 22, 2018

(1) & (2) MOTIONS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE (x2)[1] MOVING PARTY: (1) & (2) Attorneys Emma B. Elliott and Thomas T. Pennington, as counsel for Defendant Anna Sui Corporation RESPONDING PARTY(S): (1) & (2) No oppositions filed. PROOF OF SERVICE: · GRANT both applications for admission pro hac vice. ANALYSIS Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Attorneys: Emma Elliott and Thomas T. Pennington The applications to appear pro hac vice are GRANTED.

  • Name

    PAMELA HILL VS ANNA SUI CORPORATION

  • Case No.

    BC717194

  • Hearing

    Apr 30, 2019

Nature of Proceedings: Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Case: Lucia De Jesus v. Frozsun, Inc., #1416723, Judge Sterne Hearing Date: March 10, 2014 Matter: Application of Brandon Perloff to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Tentative Ruling: This is an employment class action suit. Brandon Perloff, a member in good standing of the Bar of Pennsylvania applies to appear pro hac vice for plaintiff.

  • Name

    LUCIA DEJESUS V. FROZSUN, INC.

  • Case No.

    1416723

  • Hearing

    Mar 10, 2014

RG18930929: Oakland Bulk And Oversized Terminal, LLC VS City of Oakland 06/08/2023 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Gregory McConnell (Non-Party) in Department 514 Tentative Ruling - 06/07/2023 Noël Wise The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Gregory McConnell on 05/09/2023 is Granted.

  • Name

    OAKLAND BULK AND OVERSIZED TERMINAL, LLC VS CITY OF OAKLAND

  • Case No.

    RG18930929

  • Hearing

    Jun 08, 2023

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

(3) APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ANDREE QUARESIMA TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, (4) APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF MATTHEW E. BOBULSKY TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF, and (5) APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF BRET L. LUSSKIN TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF are GRANTED.

  • Name

    SIGLIN VS SIXT RENT A CAR LLC [E-FILE]

  • Case No.

    37-2020-00012844-CU-BT-CTL

  • Hearing

    Nov 05, 2020

(1-2) Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (3) CMC Ruling: (1-3) Off Calendar – no hearing will be held. (1) Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice: The Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice submitted by Joseph Hinkhouse is CONTINUED to August 8, 2017, Dept. C13, at 2pm, to allow the Applicant to demonstrate compliance with CRC 9.40(e).

  • Name

    GUASTELLO VS. AIG SPECIALTY INS CO

  • Case No.

    30-2017-00899314-CU-IC-CJC

  • Hearing

    Jul 18, 2017

Pursuant to Government Code section 70617(e)(2), on or before the anniversary of the date of this order Pro Hac Vice Applicant Donald Blydenburgh shall pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that Pro Hac Vice Applicant maintains pro hac vice status in this case. The Court hereby sets a compliance hearing for 03/04/2025 at 03:00 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.

  • Name

    HATCHER VS ALBERTSONS LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CV021209

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2024

  • County

    Alameda County, CA

Wurm to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

  • Name

    BRENNA ROMINES VS THE CITY OF LANCASTER, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20AVCV00345

  • Hearing

    Jul 21, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Festin as Counsel Pro Hac Vice. Summary Moving Arguments Defendants seek a court order permitting Scott D. Festin to appear pro hac vice to represent them in this action. Opposing Arguments None filed.

  • Name

    DAVID AVETISYAN VS GUSTAVO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV27781

  • Hearing

    Jan 04, 2023

Plaintiffs’ Application for Caio Formenti to Appear Pro Hac Vice and Defendants’ Application for Leila D’Aquin to Appear Pro Hac Vice are GRANTED.

  • Name

    DIANE DE ROUSSEAU, ET AL. VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    18STCV10371

  • Hearing

    Jul 01, 2021

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

The subject application constitutes the first application for pro hac vice admission in the state of California within at least the last two years. The application shows a credit payment to the State Bar of California. The application for pro hac vice admission is granted. Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission scheduled for 9-28-23. Case Management Conference set for November 1, 2023. Markel to give notice.

  • Name

    FACEY MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23CHCV00300

  • Hearing

    Sep 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RULING : Granted Plaintiff Jade Mendez moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Mary Pat Statler. Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To be admitted pro hac vice, one must be a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States. ( California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

  • Name

    JADE MENDEZ VS FALCON PICTURES, LLC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00628

  • Hearing

    Feb 14, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

MYERS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE B. APPLICATION OF RICHARD F. LOMBARDO FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE JAMES D. MYERS’ application for admission pro hac vice is GRANTED. RICHARD F. LOMBARDO’S application for admission pro hac vice is GRANTED. DISCUSSION James D. Myers and Richard F. Lombardo apply to the Court for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of Plaintiff BHRAC, LLC.

  • Name

    BHRAC LLC VS. REGENCY CAR RENTALS LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC618671

  • Hearing

    Oct 04, 2016

MUST TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE IS GRANTED. Attorney Brian T. Must (“Applicant”) seeks admission to appear as counsel pro hac vice to represent Defendants in this action alongside Brett Oberst, an active member of the State Bar of California. Applicant is a resident of Pennsylvania and is a member in good standing in the State of Pennsylvania. (Must Decl. ¶ 5-6.) He has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Supreme Court of Ohio, U.S.

  • Name

    JAKE HAMMOND VS ADVANCED SEALING, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV34894

  • Hearing

    Jan 30, 2020

SUBJECT: (1) Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice by Eileen M. Letts Moving Party: Tyler Thornton and Sunfire Nutrition, LLC Resp. Party: None (2) Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice by Giselle B. May Moving Party: Tyler Thornton and Sunfire Nutrition, LLC Resp. Party: None The motions to be admitted pro hac vice are GRANTED, upon proof of service and payment to the State Bar of California.

  • Name

    ILAN BITTON VS TYLER THORNTON, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV36064

  • Hearing

    Jul 14, 2020

: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Notice of Application; Memorandum of Points and Authorities and Verified Application for Admission of John W Patton Jr to the Bar of This Court Pro Hac Vice; Proof of Service, 06/30/2022 APPEARANCES MARC APPELL, counsel, present for Plaintiff(s) telephonically.

  • Case No.

    2021-00557646

  • Hearing

    Aug 04, 2022

Counsel licensed in another state may, in the courts discretion, be permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice if counsel is associated with an attorney of record who is an active member of the California bar. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) Appearance pro hac vice is a privilege and not a right under the United States Constitution. (Leis v. Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438, 441.)

  • Name

    THUNDERROAD MOTORCYCLE TRUST 2016-1, ET AL. VS VERVENT, INC.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV01129

  • Hearing

    Jan 03, 2024

  • Judge

    11/28/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Counsel licensed in another state may, in the courts discretion, be permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice if counsel is associated with an attorney of record who is an active member of the California bar. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) Appearance pro hac vice is a privilege and not a right under the United States Constitution. (Leis v. Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438, 441.)

  • Name

    THUNDERROAD MOTORCYCLE TRUST 2016-1, ET AL. VS VERVENT, INC.

  • Case No.

    21SMCV01129

  • Hearing

    Feb 08, 2024

  • Judge

    11/28/2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Hermsen For Pro Hac Vice Applicaton And; Verified Application Of James R. Hermsen For Admission Pro Hac Vice SET FOR HEARING ON MONDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2007, LINE 5, DEFENDANT U-HAUL COMPANY OF CALIFORNIA, BOBBY JOHNSON'S Notice Of Motion Of James R. Hermsen For Pro Hac Vice Applicaton And; Verified Application Of James R. Hermsen For Admission Pro Hac Vice IS GRANTED. NO OPPOSITION FILED. =(302/PJM)

  • Name

    AVELINE NAGTALON ET AL VS. U-HAUL COMPANY OF CALIFO0RNIA ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC07463032

  • Hearing

    Nov 26, 2007

First, Leraris seeks to be admitted as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants American Express Company and American Express Travel Related Services Co. Inc. (together, “Defendants”). Leraris’ Application complies with the above requirements. Second, Barbur seeks to be admitted as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants. Barbur’s Application complies with the above requirements. Third, Chesler seeks to be admitted as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants.

  • Name

    LAURELWOOD CLEANERS, LLC VS AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV07952

  • Hearing

    Oct 08, 2020

Texas 1990 Titles of court, case number and cause in which moving party has filed an application to appear pro hac vice in this state in the last two years, dates and whether motion granted or not: Has not filed an application as counsel pro hac vice in California within the past two years.

  • Name

    VICTOR YELCHIN ET AL VS FCA US LLC ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC629096

  • Hearing

    Jan 27, 2017

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

F-49 Date: 9-2-22 Case #22CHCV00377 Trial Date: N/A PRO HAC VICE MOVING PARTY: Defendant, William Corbett, et al.

  • Name

    JAN MINKOVICH VS WILLIAM D CORBETT, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00377

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

RULING : Granted Defendants Exceline Food Products, LLC, Flagship Food Group, LLC and Flagship Food Group North America, LLC move for pro hac vice admission of attorney Mark Tyler Knight. Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.

  • Name

    FRESH START GOURMET, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS EXCELLINE FOOD PRODUCTS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22CHCV00700

  • Hearing

    Jun 27, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: PLAINTIFF’S PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS Samuel J. Miller Samuel J. Miller (“Applicant”) seeks admission to appear as counsel pro hac vice to represent Dylan Wishnow, a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Meredith Schlosser, (“Plaintiff”) in this action along with Alyssa K. Schabloski of the law firm Gladius Law, APC, an active member of the State Bar of California. (Declaration of Samuel J. Miller.)

  • Name

    DYLAN WISHNOW VS MICHELE M. HAKAKHA, M.D., FACOG, INC., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    19STCV46139

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

Childress to Appear Pro Hac Vice by State Bar. The Court has reviewed the submitted evidence and finds that Applicant has satisfied the requirements to be admitted pro hac vice in this case. The application is GRANTED. It is ordered that Michael L. Childress be admitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice for the purpose of representing Plaintiffs in this action. Applicant shall be subject to all applicable rules of this Court. Moving party to give notice.

  • Name

    MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL

  • Case No.

    BC688588

  • Hearing

    Aug 30, 2019

The Court intends to: Application (1): Grant Attorney Victoria Phillips' application to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff Erik Joe Morales. Application (2): Continue the hearing on Attorney Lynn Hu's application to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff Erik Joe Morales to September 9, 2016.

  • Name

    MORALES VS WELL-PICT

  • Case No.

    56-2016-00481672-CU-TT-VTA

  • Hearing

    Aug 19, 2016

MOTION For Admission Pro Hac Vice Of Plaintiff'S Out-Of-State Counsel Of Record; Application For Pro Hac Vice Admission Of Lola S. Lea PLAINTIFF JOSEPH L STENDIG MOTION For Admission Pro Hac Vice Of Plaintiff'S Out-Of-State Counsel Of Record; Application For Pro Hac Vice Admission Of Lola S. Lea GRANTED-IF MOVING PARTY PROVIDES PROOF OF PAYMENT OF FEES TO STATE BAR PURSUANT TO CRC 983(C), NO OPPOSITION FILED, OTHERWISE DENIED.(302/REQ/JU)

  • Name

    JOSEPH L STENDIG VS. INTERMUNE, INC.

  • Case No.

    CGC03416656

  • Hearing

    Feb 10, 2003

s Application of Andrea Daloia to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice 2)Defendant Beatrice Companies, Inc.'s Application of James J Frost, Esq. for Admission to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice 3)Defendant ICI Americas Inc.'s Application of Michael Hardy to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice The Court GRANTS the unopposed applications of James J. Frost, Michael Hardy, and Andrea Daloia to be admitted pro hac vice in this action.

  • Name

    ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT VS. SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS US, LLC

  • Case No.

    30-2008-00078246-CU-JR-CXC

  • Hearing

    Mar 02, 2018

Harrison Pro Hac Vice; Verified Application For Admission Of Attorney Pro Hac Vice Jeffrey C. Johnson For Admission Of Attorney Pro Hac Vice SET FOR HEARING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 13, 2007, LINE 3. PLAINTIFF FLOOR FACTORY, INC.'S MOTION Re: Applications For Admission Of Attorneys Jeffrey C. Johnson And Jonah O. Harrison Pro Hac Vice IS GRANTED, NO OPPOSITION FILED. =(302/PJB)

  • Name

    FLOOR FACTORY INC VS. IFLOOR COM INC ET AL

  • Case No.

    CGC06449288

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2007

Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice re: Gretchen Elsner 3. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice re: Nathaniel K. Scearcy 4. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice re: Timothy L. Sifers 5. Status Conference - Continued to June 11, 2021 at 1:30PM - no further Joint Report is required. The pro hac vice applications of Gretchen Elsner, Timothy L. Sifers, and Nathaniel K. Scearcy are granted.

  • Name

    DONOVAN VS. DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH

  • Case No.

    30-2021-01183688

  • Hearing

    Jun 04, 2021

Sprouts Farmers Market CASE CATEGORY: Civil - Unlimited CASE TYPE: Misc Complaints - Other EVENT TYPE: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice (CLM) Motion for an Order Granting Application of Gretchen M. Lehman to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice; MOVING PARTY: SFM LLC CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Motion for an Order Granting Application of Gretchen M.

  • Case No.

    2021-00550099

  • Hearing

    Aug 31, 2021

16-7348 Williams Pro Hac Vice 2/6/2019 S. Reed Morgan applies to appear as counsel pro hac vice to represent Plaintiffs Brian and Raquel Williams. Kenneth Meleyco is the California attorney of record for Plaintiffs. No opposition has been filed. The application to appear pro hac vice is verified by S. Reed Morgan pursuant to California California Rule of Court 9.40(c)(1). The application appears sufficient in all respects. Gov.

  • Name

    BRIAN S. WILLIAMS ET AL. VS PRESSURE WASHER CENTER, INC. ET AL.

  • Case No.

    STK-CV-UPL-2016-0007348

  • Hearing

    Feb 01, 2019

Conroy to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice filed on October 4, 2022 (the same date Fishers reply was filed) does not attach a proof of service, so it is unclear whether it was served. In addition, the proof of service attached to Fishers notice of motion, filed on September 9, 2022, does not list the Verified Application for Admission of Caitlin R. Conroy to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice among the moving papers that were served on September 9, 2022.

  • Name

    LYNN ANDREA COUCH VS A. G. LAYNE, INC., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    22STCV19989

  • Hearing

    Oct 11, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Goudiss for Pro Hac Vice Admission Moving Party : Counsel Applicant Alan S. Goudiss Resp. Party : None SUBJECT: Verified Application of Mitchell K. Menlove for Pro Hac Vice Admission Moving Party : Counsel Applicant Mitchell K. Menlove Resp. Party : None The Verified Applications to Appear for Pro Hac Vice Admission are GRANTED.

  • Name

    KSFB MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. VS FOCUS FINANCIAL PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL.

  • Case No.

    23STCV06825

  • Hearing

    Jun 12, 2023

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Cal.

  • Name

    SOCIEDAD EXPORTADORA F & A FAMILY FRESH SPA VS NZG SPECIALTIES INC. DBA GOURMET TRADING COMPANY

  • Case No.

    21TRCV00593

  • Hearing

    Jan 12, 2022

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

Sentell Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Defendant Dakota One Franchising LLC: The application of attorney William W. Sentell for leave to appear as counsel pro hac vice for defendant Dakota One Franchising LLC is granted. 2. Motion for an Order Admitting Leonard H. MacPhee Pro Hac Vice on Behalf of Defendant Dakota One Franchising LLC: The application of attorney Leonard H. MacPhee for leave to appear as counsel pro hac vice for defendant Dakota One Franchising LLC is continued to June 27, 2019.

  • Name

    SILVERBACK CONSULTING LLC V. PEAK FRANCHISING, INC.

  • Case No.

    30-2018-01040604-CU-BC-CJC

  • Hearing

    May 30, 2019

Applicant has appeared pro hac vice in California once in the past two years. (Raven Decl., ¶ 8.) The application also provides that the $50 fee required to be admitted pro hac vice has been paid to the State Bar of California. (Fawaz Decl., ¶ 2.) The Court GRANTS the application to be admitted pro hac vice.

  • Name

    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS VIKRAM J. SINGH, M.D., ET AL.

  • Case No.

    20STCV00358

  • Hearing

    Aug 14, 2020

Please wait a moment while we load this page.

New Envelope