APPLICATION OF JONATHAN G. PRAY FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE; APPLICATION OF REILLY E. MEYER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
diligence be served in another manner specified in this article and that either (1) A cause of action exists against the party upon whom service is to be made or he or she is a necessary or proper party to the action, [or] (2) The party to be served has or claims an interest in real or personal property in this state that is subject to the jurisdiction of the court or the relief demanded in the action consists wholly or in part in excluding the party from any interest in the property.” (§ 415.50, subd. (a).) The basic test is whether the declaration shows plaintiff took “those steps which a reasonable person who truly desired to give notice would have taken under the circumstances.” (Donel, Inc. v. Badalian (1978) 87 Cal.App.3d 327, 333.)
The Court finds, from the Declaration of Patrick Howe, that Mackenzie-Davis cannot with reasonable diligence be served in another manner, as Mackenzie-Davis’ current address is unknown after various attempts and manners to locate it. Even though no opposition was filed despite the Court granting a continuance, the Court has considered the comments made at the May 8, 2026 hearing. Given Attorney Howe’s assertions—that separate attorneys represent Plaintiff in its defense of Defendant in the separate litigation and that the present action is against the interest of Defendant—the Court is not persuaded by Attorney Stoll’s suggestion that Plaintiff has or can obtain the requisite information necessary to serve Mackenzie-Davis in another manner. Moreover, the Court is satisfied by Plaintiff’s showing that Mackenzie-Davis is a necessary or proper party to this action.
The Nichols Partnership LLC v. SRGA LP et al 26CV000499
[1] APPLICATION OF JONATHAN G. PRAY FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
TENTATIVE RULING: There is no proof of payment of $600 to California Bar Association. If the missing proof is filed prior to the hearing, the application will be GRANTED without need for appearance. If no proof of service is filed, the petition will be CONTINUED to June 26, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to allow petitioner time to remedy the deficiency.
The moving party fails to include, in the notice of this motion, the current version of the Tentative Ruling notice required by Local Rule 2.9, effective 1/1/26. The current version allows a party or counsel to request a hearing by calling the Court or emailing the Court, at JudicialReception2@napa.courts.ca.gov and providing specified information set out in Local Rule 2.9. The moving party is therefore directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the current Tentative Ruling notice explicitly required by Local Rule 2.9 to opposing party/ies forthwith.
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?”
The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
[2] APPLICATION OF REILLY E. MEYER FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE
TENTATIVE RULING: There is no proof of payment of $600 to California Bar Association. If the missing proof is filed prior to the hearing, the application will be GRANTED
without need for appearance. If no proof of service is filed, the petition will be CONTINUED to June 26, 2026, at 8:30 a.m. in Dept. B to allow petitioner time to remedy the deficiency.
The moving party failed to include in the notice of this motion proper notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system as required by Local Rule 2.9. Moving party is directed to immediately provide, by telephone call AND email, the missing notice to opposing party/ies forthwith. The requirements for requesting oral argument under Local Rule 2.9 remain in effect. However, the Court may grant belated requests for oral argument or continuance of hearing, made by any party who represents it did not timely receive the required notice, regardless of whether or not moving party is present at the hearing.
11