u.s. bank, n.a., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. estate of roland glen hoefer, et al., Defendants.
Case No.: 20STCV12589
Hearing Date: September 21, 2020
Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
(3) APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
Harry S. Davis applies to the Court for admission pro hac vice to appear in this action on behalf of Plaintiffs U.S. Bank N.A., as Securities Intermediary for Viva Capital 3 L.P., and Viva Capital 3 L.P. (jointly, “Plaintiffs”). The application is submitted with a declaration by Mr. Davis. The application is unopposed.
Joseph M. Kelleher and Brian D. Burack also apply to the Court for admission pro hac vice to appear in this action on behalf of Defendant Estate of Roland Glen Hoefer (“Defendant”). The application is submitted with declarations by Messrs. Kelleher and Burack as well as local counsel, Alexander M. Kargher. The application is unopposed.
The Court notes that all applicants failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c
Hearing Date
September 21, 2020
Type
Declaratory Relief Only (General Jurisdiction)
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
u.s. bank, n.a., et al., Plaintiffs, vs. estate of roland glen hoefer, et al., Defendants.
Case No.: 20STCV12589
Hearing Date: September 21, 2020
Hearing Time: 10:00 a.m.
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE:
(3) APPLICATIONS FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
Harry S. Davis applies to the Court for admission pro hac vice to appear in this action on behalf of Plaintiffs U.S. Bank N.A., as Securities Intermediary for Viva Capital 3 L.P., and Viva Capital 3 L.P. (jointly, “Plaintiffs”). The application is submitted with a declaration by Mr. Davis. The application is unopposed.
Joseph M. Kelleher and Brian D. Burack also apply to the Court for admission pro hac vice to appear in this action on behalf of Defendant Estate of Roland Glen Hoefer (“Defendant”). The application is submitted with declarations by Messrs. Kelleher and Burack as well as local counsel, Alexander M. Kargher. The application is unopposed.
The Court notes that all applicants failed to comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c