How to Get Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Useful Rulings on Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Recent Rulings on Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

VELAZQUEZ VS KIA MOTORS AMERICA INC.

Plaintiff Francisco Velazquez’s Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice as to Kim D. Stephens, Gregory F. Coleman, Paul C. Peel, Jason T. Dennett and Adam A. Edwards The pro hac vice applications of Adam A. Edwards, Gregory Coleman, Jason T. Dennett, Kim D. Stephens, and Paul C. Peel do not address whether the applicants are: (1) regularly employed in the State of California or (2) regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. CRC, Rule 9.40(a)(2) and (3).

  • Hearing

    Jun 20, 2021

COURTNEY SCHEUERMAN VS ELSA ZEVALLOS, ET AL.

CASE NO: 20STCV14499 [TENTATIVE] ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO PERMIT COUNSEL TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE WITHOUT PREJUDICE Dept. 31 1:30 p.m. September 21, 2020 Plaintiff seeks an order permitting attorney Simeon Osborn to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action. The applicant establishes that counsel is licensed in the State of Washington and is in good standing, and the applicant establishes that he does not regularly work or live in California.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

MACDONALD VS GROUP 341, LLC

Moore to appear pro hac vice is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 21, 2020

NGAMJIRAPHAK VS. CHOWDHURY

King to be admitted pro hac vice to represent plaintiffs Prince Ngamjiraphak and Amul Thakraal in this action are granted. The applicants have complied with CRC Rule 9.40. Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

GEORGE GOMEZ VS AXALTA COATING SYSTEMS, LLC, ET AL.

THREE APPLICATIONS FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION The UNOPPOSED applications of Robert J. Flora, Esq., Monique M. Weiner, Esq., and Adriana M. Houlton, Esq. to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action on behalf of defendant E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company are GRANTED. The Court finds that the applications comply with all requirements of Cal. Rule of Court 9.40 and that the applicants have provided sufficient proof of service on the State Bar and payment of the requisite fee.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

ARANGO VS. SCHLUMBERGER TECHNOLOGY CORPORATION

The unrefuted failure of Defendant’s pro hac vice counsel to respond to Plaintiff’s counsel’s many efforts to contact him (February, March, May and July of 2020) is not acceptable. Among other things, this motion potentially could have been avoided if contact had been made.

  • Hearing

    Sep 18, 2020

JASON ALAN VS. AUSTIN CAPITAL BANK SSB

Per CRC 9.40(a), 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; [Resident of Houston, TX; ¶1 of declaration.

  • Hearing

    Sep 17, 2020

F. KEWELL VS. T. KEWELL.

HEARING ON APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE FILED BY PLAINTIFF * TENTATIVE RULING: * Craig Keller’s application to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for plaintiff is granted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 16, 2020

MARIA L ARTEAGO VS AFSHIN FARZADMEHR ET AL

Visokey to appear as counsel Pro Hac Vice are continued to 9-22-20 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 28, Spring Street Courthouse.Department 28 is closed for motions on 9-14-20.

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

ASSEMI BROTHERS V. WONDERFUL PISTACHIOS AND ALMONDS

Motion: Plaintiffs’ Renewed Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Tentative Ruling: To grant the application for attorney John C. Richter to appear as counsel pro hac vice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 14, 2020

PRICE V. NORTHERN TRUST CO.

Rake's unopposed Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice is granted as prayed. Mr. Rake is to submit a formal order that sets out verbatim the tentative ruling herein for all five matters and complies with California Rule of Court 3.1312 and is thereafter to prepare, file and serve notice of order. This is the Court's tentative ruling.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

JUDITH A GERHART VS. MARK CASON

Pro hac vice appearance is granted "provided that an active member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record" and makes regular appearances with pro hac vice counsel. (Rule 9.40(a).) As required by Rule 9.40(f): "A person permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule 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.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

FILANC-BALFOUR BEATTY, JV VS. IRVINE RANCH WATER DISTRICT

Rutigliano to be admitted pro hac vice to represent plaintiff Filanc-Balfour Beatty, JV in this action is granted. The applicant has complied with CRC Rule 9.40. Plaintiff is ordered to give notice of the ruling unless notice is waived.

  • Hearing

    Sep 11, 2020

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACTING BY AND THROUGH ORANGE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY TONY RACKAUCKAS VS. ABBOTT LABORATORIES

Pending a remittitur from the Court of Appeal, it is not apparent that this Court currently has jurisdiction to rule on the pro hac vice motions currently before the court.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

XIONG VS. JEUNESSE GLOBAL, LLC

Jacobson to Appear Pro Hac Vice for defendants Jeunesse Global, LLC and Kim Hui is GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 10, 2020

MARVIN TARNOL, ET AL. VS UNITED FABRICARE SUPPLY, INC.

Dillard filed the instant application to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Vulcan. No opposition was submitted.

  • Hearing

    Sep 04, 2020

MARTER VS RECOB

HEARING ON PRO HAC VICE ( BERNARD BOLANOS) * TENTATIVE RULING: * Granted. If oral argument is requested, counsel shall contact the department, notify opposing counsel and appear at 1:30 pm for argument.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

MARTER VS RECOB

HEARING ON PRO HAC VICE ( ATTORNEY CLYDE J. JAY JACKSON III) * TENTATIVE RULING: * Granted. If oral argument is requested, counsel shall contact the department, notify opposing counsel and appear at 1:30 pm for argument.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

NIEMCZYK VS. BELL SPORTS, INC.

(“Defendant”) filed the application of Brian Keith Gibson to appear as counsel pro hac vice on its behalf. Motion GRANTED. Moving party to give notice.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

SWANSON VS FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

The Court will conduct a hearing on Attorney Joe Alfred Izen's application to appear pro hac vice. At the hearing, the Court will invite the applicant to address: (1) Attorney Izen's residence address (California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(d)(1); and (2) whether Attorney Izen has paid the fee to the State Bar of California required by Rule 9.40(e). This is the tentative ruling for an appearance hearing at 1:30 p.m. on Friday, September 4, 2020.

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Other

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

SLATER VS BORO

Defendant Michael Slater's Application of Collin Brodrick to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is denied without prejudice. Counsel's application does not address Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(5). In addition, there is no proof of service of the motion on the State Bar. Finally, no amended notice of the current hearing date was filed or served. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)

  • Hearing

    Sep 03, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

AMANDA HORN VS. NISSAN MOTOR CO.

HEARING ON APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE (Atty. McLafferty) FILED BY PLAINTIFFS * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s application for attorney Elizabeth McLafferty to appear pro hac vice is granted. The court will sign the order provided.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

AMANDA HORN VS. NISSAN MOTOR CO.

HEARING ON APPLICATION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE (Atty. Breen) FILED BY PLAINTIFFS * TENTATIVE RULING: * Plaintiff’s application for attorney Thomas Breen to appear pro hac vice is granted. The court will sign the order provided.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

ERNEST L JARRETT VS DALE K. GALIPO, ET AL.

Plaintiff, after associating with local counsel, caused the wrongful death lawsuit to be filed, was admitted pro hac vice, and functioned as lead attorney. Woods and County were represented by attorneys Roger Colvin (“Colvin”) and Vincent Ewing. Archibald subsequently contacted Plaintiff and advised that she had decided to make Dale K. Galipo (“Galipo”) lead attorney. Plaintiff’s status as an attorney of record in the case continued.

  • Hearing

    Sep 02, 2020

YYK HOLDCO LLC VS PMR-SJ CORPORATION

Separately, plaintiffs sought admission of two Texas lawyers, Bookhout and Hoffman, pro hac vice. They filed motions to that effect sine die. ROA 11, 12. The court noted on July 21 that it had no trouble concluding that the pro hac vice application of Mr. Hoffman ought to be granted. Defense counsel stated there was no objection to the application. His application was granted. ROA 20. The court felt the application of Mr. Bookhout, a much more junior attorney, was a different matter.

  • Hearing

    Sep 01, 2020

  • Type

    Contract

  • Sub Type

    Breach

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 153     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.