Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice
22CV006830: DEPARTMENT OF FAIR EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING, AN AGENCY OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA vs TESLA, INC. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice - Defendant Tesla, Inc.s Notice For Application And Application For The Admission Of John P. Hooper To Appear As Counsel Pro Hac Vice; filed by Tesla, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# A-06830-066 in Department 15
Tentative Ruling - 06/10/2026 Peter Borkon
The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Tesla, Inc. on 06/03/2026 is Granted.
The unopposed application of John P. Hooper (Counsel) to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant, Tesla, Inc. is GRANTED. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)
Counsel is a member in good standing with the State Bar of New York, and has been associated with Raymond Cardozo, counsel of record for Defendant, who is an active member of the State Bar of California. Counsel has not previously applied for admission pro hac vice in any actions in California. (See Hooper Verified Application & Cardozo Decl.)
On or before the one-year anniversary of this order, Counsel must pay a renewal fee of $500. (Gov. Code § 70617(e)(2).)
The Court sets a compliance date for Tuesday, 6/15/2027 at 2:30 p.m. in Department 15. If the renewal fee has been paid at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, then no appearance will be required. Counsel must file a notice of renewal with the Court and a declaration showing payment of the renewal fee.
The clerk is directed to serve endorsed-file copies of this order, with proof of service to all counsel and any self-represented parties of record by mail.
Compliance Hearing Pro Hac Renewal Hooper is scheduled for 06/15/2027 at 02:30 PM in Department 15 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse.
Clerk is directed to serve copies of this order, with proof of service, to counsel and to selfrepresented parties of record. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”