Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
“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:
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.)
“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:
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.)
“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).)
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.
DIGITALBRIDGE GROUP, INC. (F/K/A COLONY CAPITAL, INC.), A CORPORATION, ET AL. VS XL SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV35339
Mar 15, 2023
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.
VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.
30-2019-01049612-CU-BT-CXC
Jul 19, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
BROOKS VS PADI WORLDWIDE CORPORATION
30-2019-01119291
Oct 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
*TENTATIVE RULING:* The application for admission pro hac vice is approved.
SAPHINA ELLIS VS. GRAVES DEANNA
C22-01781
Jan 12, 2023
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.
MORAN-GREEN VS. WEST COAST AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE
30-2019-01045760
Oct 21, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
2022-00562834
Nov 17, 2022
Ventura County, CA
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.
BROOKS VS PADI WORLDWIDE CORPORATION
30-2019-01119291
Nov 01, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
BIG BUS TOURS LOS ANGELES, INC. VS STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
22STCV14150
Jun 23, 2023
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.
DE CONSULTING GROUP, INC., A CALIFORIA CORPORATION, ET AL. VS YOKOHAMA VENTURES, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV18018
Oct 02, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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
MIRNA ONTIVEROS SOTO, ET AL. VS STADCO LA, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV29265
Jun 15, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
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.
KIARI CEPHUS, ET AL. VS QUALITY CONTROL MUSIC, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY
22STCV27458
Feb 02, 2023
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.
2022-00562866
May 18, 2022
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.
ORDONEZ-CASTELLON VS AEROTEK, INC
RG19045302
Feb 06, 2021
Noël Wise
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.)
MABVAX THERAPEUTICS HOLDINGS INC VS HONING
37-2019-00018398-CU-SL-CTL
Jan 23, 2020
San Diego County, CA
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.
NEAL L. EIGLER, ET AL. VS STATE FARM GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL.
19STCV40675
Jul 01, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Insurance
Intellectual Property
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.
NGUYEN V. LAI
30-2019-01044968
Oct 19, 2020
Orange County, CA
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).)
JENNIFER BAILEY, ET AL. VS DOMETIC CORPORATION A DELAWARE CORPORATION, ET AL.
23CHCV00871
Nov 30, 2023
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.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA VS. BOEHRINGER INGELHEIM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
30-2017-00914577-CU-BT-CXC
Oct 06, 2017
Orange County, CA
Blum to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice that defendant Zoetis has lodged with the Court.
CALFTECH CORPORATION V. ZOETIS
VCU 273468
Dec 13, 2018
Tulare County, CA
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.
SINGH VS BLUE CREEK CAPITAL, LLC
HG21109171
Jan 03, 2022
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
ESTATE OF IMELDA VALENCIA ET AL. VS TARGET CORPORATION ET AL.
STK-CV-UPI-2018-0002642
Mar 12, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
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).
KYTCH, INC. VS GAMBLE
RG21099155
Aug 23, 2021
Alameda County, CA
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.
NATURE'S PRODUCE COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS CHUBB AGRIBUSINESS, A CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV17267
Jan 06, 2022
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.
MENDOZA VS. LAGUNA COOKIE COMPANY, INC.
30-2019-01107762
Jun 26, 2020
Orange 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.
MENDOZA VS. LAGUNA COOKIE COMPANY, INC.
30-2019-01107762
Jun 25, 2020
Orange County, CA
Sartorius to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice and the Verified Application of Sahand Farahati to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice .
STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. VS BIG BUS TOURS LOS ANGELES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV36480
Feb 24, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
VERL VOGEL VS. FCA US LLC
37-2017-00024229-CU-PA-CTL
Sep 19, 2019
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Auto
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.
CHRYSTAL VS. HARLEY DAVIDSON INC
37-2016-00044978-CU-PL-NC
Jan 09, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
.: 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.
ROBERTO DELGADILLO, ET AL. VS ROMAN VARGAS, ET AL.
18STCV04166
Jun 12, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Real Property
Landlord Tenant
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).)
CYNTHIA CONE VS STARBUCKS CORPORATION
BC697445
Nov 17, 2021
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.
PIEPER VS CABLECONN INDUSTRIES INC
37-2020-00030894-CU-OE-CTL
Oct 15, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Employment
Other Employment
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.
SPENCER RECOVERY CENTERS FLORIDA, INC. V. UNITED HEALTHCARE SERVICES, INC.
30-2017-00958127
Dec 14, 2020
Orange County, CA
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.
MICKEY BEARMAN COMPANY VS LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE CO., ET AL.
23STCV26655
Mar 28, 2024
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.
DOLAR VS MOPHIE, INC.
30-2019-01066228
Jun 14, 2019
Orange County, CA
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)
TRADE SCHOOL REVIEW ASSOCIATION VS. STATFORD CAREER INSTITUTE ET AL
CGC02411230
Feb 27, 2003
San Francisco County, CA
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).)
JADE MENDEZ VS FALCON PICTURES, LLC., ET AL.
22CHCV00628
Feb 10, 2023
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.
HAMILTON VS. ASTRAZENECA
37-2013-00070440-CU-MM-CTL
Jan 09, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
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.
2020-00547614
Nov 23, 2022
Ventura 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 .
NOAH MEINER, ET AL. VS ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, ET AL.
21STCV46412
Dec 06, 2022
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.
TRAVIS WALTON ET AL VS REMINGTON ARMS COMPANY LLC ET AL
BC723793
Mar 03, 2023
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 .
NOAH MEINER, ET AL. VS ROBIN AMELIA SHEEHAN, ET AL.
21STCV46412
Dec 07, 2022
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.
SONOMA BRANDS II, L.P. VS GUAYAKI YERBA MATE, S.P.C.
SCV-272147
Apr 05, 2023
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
PURCELL VS. POTRATZ
30-2019-01115653
Jan 01, 2021
Orange County, CA
[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.
ANNA WANG VS WAVE PLASTIC SURGERY CENTER, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
20STCV07171
Oct 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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).)
JANE DOE VS DOE 1 - SCHOOL, ET AL.
20STCV42337
May 20, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
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.)
DIGNITY HEALTH, A CALIFORNIA NONPROFIT PUBLIC BENEFIT CORPORATION, ET AL. VS OSCAR HEALTH PLAN OF CALIFORNIA, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION
22SMCV02192
Sep 29, 2023
11/28/2022
Los Angeles 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.
CAIS CAPITAL, LLC VS MREC MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL.
22STCV08807
May 26, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
Weiner’s Applications to Appear Pro Hac Vice without prejudice.
STARLINE TOURS OF HOLLYWOOD, INC. VS BIG BUS TOURS LOS ANGELES, INC., ET AL.
19STCV36480
Sep 15, 2021
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.)
ORTUNO VS THE HERTZ CORPORATION
37-2022-00006731-CU-OE-CTL
Dec 20, 2023
San Diego County, CA
Applications to Appear Pro Hac Vice Cal.
MANSOUREH SOLTANI, ET AL. VS FOOTHILL AIRCRAFT SALES & SERVICE, INC., A CALIFORNIA COMPANY, ET AL.
21STCV39704
Jun 26, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Cal.
LISA HU VS DANIEL SHAW, ET AL.
20TRCV00812
Jan 13, 2022
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.
DON LEE FARMS VS SAVAGE RIVER INC
BC662838
Nov 05, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
BUDINA SMITH VS RICHARD ROBINSON, ET AL.
17CV-00110
Jun 12, 2018
Merced County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
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.
2014-00460210
Nov 18, 2022
Ventura County, CA
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.
VIASAT, INC VS ACACIA COMMUNICATIONS, INC.
37-2016-00002323-CU-BC-NC
Jan 23, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Contract
Breach
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.
SUSAN THOELE, ET AL. VS MAINFREIGHT LIMITED, A NEW ZEALAND CORPORATION, ET AL.
21STCV00887
Apr 07, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
CONCLUSION The Court GRANTS the Verified Application to Appears as Counsel Pro Hac Vice .
STEVE KUH VS LEMONADE INSURANCE COMPANY
21STCV42586
Mar 29, 2023
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).)
GREYSTONE LOAN AGGREGATOR, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS MACLAY INVESTMENTS, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
23CHCV00313
Jul 05, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Thompson to appear as counsel pro hac vice are denied without prejudice .
BHAGWATI DEVI BALDWA, ET AL. VS GOLI NUTRITION INC., A CANADIAN CORPORATION, NUMBER 1102849-9, ET AL.
23STCV18358
Nov 07, 2023
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.
HELENE G SAKELLIS VS CEDARS-SINAI MEDICAL CENTER ET AL
BC653918
Dec 02, 2022
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.
RUSSELL VS. ACL TRUCKING, INC.
30-2017-00946455-CU-PA-CJC
Jul 27, 2018
Orange County, CA
.: 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.
EDI BALDOMERO OSOY CHACON VS NINA'S MEXICAN FOOD, INC., A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, ET AL.
22STCV04913
Jul 27, 2022
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.
VCU 269295
Central Valley Supply, Inc. v. Vantage Dairy Supply LLC
Jan 11, 2018
Tulare County, CA
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.
VARGO V. PREGIS INNOVATIVE PACKAGING, LLC
VCU 270836
Jan 22, 2018
Tulare County, CA
Wurm to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.
BRENNA ROMINES VS THE CITY OF LANCASTER, A PUBLIC ENTITY, ET AL.
20AVCV00345
Jul 21, 2022
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.
DAVID AVETISYAN VS GUSTAVO PEREZ, ET AL.
22STCV27781
Jan 04, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Plaintiffs’ Application for Caio Formenti to Appear Pro Hac Vice and Defendants’ Application for Leila D’Aquin to Appear Pro Hac Vice are GRANTED.
DIANE DE ROUSSEAU, ET AL. VS KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH PLAN, INC., ET AL.
18STCV10371
Jul 01, 2021
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
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.
FACEY MEDICAL GROUP, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION VS TRAVELERS CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, A CONNECTICUT CORPORATION, ET AL.
23CHCV00300
Sep 27, 2023
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).)
JADE MENDEZ VS FALCON PICTURES, LLC., ET AL.
22CHCV00628
Feb 14, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
LUCIA DEJESUS V. FROZSUN, INC.
1416723
Mar 10, 2014
Santa Barbara County, CA
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.
OAKLAND BULK AND OVERSIZED TERMINAL, LLC VS CITY OF OAKLAND
RG18930929
Jun 08, 2023
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.
SIGLIN VS SIXT RENT A CAR LLC [E-FILE]
37-2020-00012844-CU-BT-CTL
Nov 05, 2020
San Diego County, CA
Business
Intellectual Property
(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).
GUASTELLO VS. AIG SPECIALTY INS CO
30-2017-00899314-CU-IC-CJC
Jul 18, 2017
Orange County, CA
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.
HATCHER VS ALBERTSONS LLC, ET AL.
22CV021209
Jan 30, 2024
Alameda County, CA
(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.
PAMELA HILL VS ANNA SUI CORPORATION
BC717194
Apr 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Discrimination/Harass
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.
BHRAC LLC VS. REGENCY CAR RENTALS LLC ET AL
BC618671
Oct 04, 2016
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
JAKE HAMMOND VS ADVANCED SEALING, LLC, ET AL.
19STCV34894
Jan 30, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Employment
Wrongful Term
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.
ILAN BITTON VS TYLER THORNTON, ET AL.
19STCV36064
Jul 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
: 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.
2021-00557646
Aug 04, 2022
Ventura 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.)
THUNDERROAD MOTORCYCLE TRUST 2016-1, ET AL. VS VERVENT, INC.
21SMCV01129
Jan 03, 2024
11/28/2022
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.)
THUNDERROAD MOTORCYCLE TRUST 2016-1, ET AL. VS VERVENT, INC.
21SMCV01129
Feb 08, 2024
11/28/2022
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)
AVELINE NAGTALON ET AL VS. U-HAUL COMPANY OF CALIFO0RNIA ET AL
CGC07463032
Nov 26, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
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.
LAURELWOOD CLEANERS, LLC VS AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, ET AL.
20STCV07952
Oct 08, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
VICTOR YELCHIN ET AL VS FCA US LLC ET AL
BC629096
Jan 27, 2017
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.
JAN MINKOVICH VS WILLIAM D CORBETT, ET AL.
22CHCV00377
Sep 02, 2022
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.
FRESH START GOURMET, LLC, A CALIFORNIA LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY VS EXCELLINE FOOD PRODUCTS, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.
22CHCV00700
Jun 27, 2023
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.)
DYLAN WISHNOW VS MICHELE M. HAKAKHA, M.D., FACOG, INC., A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, ET AL.
19STCV46139
Feb 07, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Medical Malpractice
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.
MILAN BACOKA SR ET AL VS BEST BUY CO ET AL
BC688588
Aug 30, 2019
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Products Liability
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.
MORALES VS WELL-PICT
56-2016-00481672-CU-TT-VTA
Aug 19, 2016
Ventura County, CA
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.
LYNN ANDREA COUCH VS A. G. LAYNE, INC., ET AL.
22STCV19989
Oct 11, 2022
Los Angeles County, CA
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.
2021-00550099
Aug 31, 2021
Ventura County, CA
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.
BRIAN S. WILLIAMS ET AL. VS PRESSURE WASHER CENTER, INC. ET AL.
STK-CV-UPL-2016-0007348
Feb 01, 2019
San Joaquin County, CA
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)
JOSEPH L STENDIG VS. INTERMUNE, INC.
CGC03416656
Feb 10, 2003
San Francisco County, CA
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.
ORANGE COUNTY WATER DISTRICT VS. SABIC INNOVATIVE PLASTICS US, LLC
30-2008-00078246-CU-JR-CXC
Mar 02, 2018
Orange County, CA
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)
FLOOR FACTORY INC VS. IFLOOR COM INC ET AL
CGC06449288
Mar 13, 2007
San Francisco County, CA
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.
DONOVAN VS. DIESTEL TURKEY RANCH
30-2021-01183688
Jun 04, 2021
Orange 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.
KSFB MANAGEMENT, LLC, ET AL. VS FOCUS FINANCIAL PARTNERS, LLC, ET AL.
23STCV06825
Jun 12, 2023
Los Angeles County, CA
Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Cal.
SOCIEDAD EXPORTADORA F & A FAMILY FRESH SPA VS NZG SPECIALTIES INC. DBA GOURMET TRADING COMPANY
21TRCV00593
Jan 12, 2022
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.
SILVERBACK CONSULTING LLC V. PEAK FRANCHISING, INC.
30-2018-01040604-CU-BC-CJC
May 30, 2019
Orange County, CA
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.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EX REL. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY VS VIKRAM J. SINGH, M.D., ET AL.
20STCV00358
Aug 14, 2020
Los Angeles County, CA
Personal Injury/ Tort
Fraud
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.