Application for Pro Hac Vice Counsel
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
DATE: June 18, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS 9:01 A.M. LINE 1 21CV391687 Oswald Order Determining Claim of Exemption Campesato vs Parties to appear. Scroll down to 9:01 A.M. Line 1 for Tentative Ruling. Jiahua Huang et al LINE 2 23CV423653 Ampere Application for Pro Hac Vice Counsel Computing LLC vs FICT Limited I. BACKGROUND On May 27 2026, Plaintiff Ampere Computing LLC filed this unopposed application for Rieko Yamauchi to be admitted as pro hac vice counsel. Upon receiving notice of the motion on May 26, 2026, defense counsel for FICT Limited responded that it would not oppose the application. A failure to oppose a motion may be deemed a consent to the granting of the motion. California Rule of Court Rule 8.54c. Failure to oppose a motion leads to the presumption that the plaintiff has no meritorious arguments. (Laguna Auto Body v. Farmers Ins. Exchange (1991) 231 Cal.App.3d 481, 489).
II. LEGAL STANDARD Purusant to California Rule of Court, rule 9.40(a), for an out-of-state lawyer, not admitted to practice in California may apply for pro hac vice admission. The application must include the following: (1) the applicant must be admitted to practice before a U.S. court, or the highest court of any state or territory; (2) he or she must not be a California resident, nor regularly engaged in practice or other business here; and (3) a member of the California Bar must be associated as attorney of record in the case.
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?”
A verified application must be filed stating (1) the applicant's residence and office addresses; (2) the court or courts in which he or she is admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that he or she is currently in good standing in such courts; (4) that he or she has not been suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title and case number of any California action
SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 1 Honorable Eunice Lee, Presiding TBD, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113
DATE: June 18, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. and 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call the Court at (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to also let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling, in accordance with California Rule of Court, Rule 3.1308(a)(1) and Local Rule 8D.
**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**
LAW AND MOTION TENTATIVE RULINGS LINE 2 23CV423653 Ampere in which he or she has applied to appear pro hac vice during the preceding Computing LLC two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; vs FICT Limited and (6) the name, address and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar who is attorney of record. (Cal. Rule Court, Rule 9.40(d)—filing fee must accompany application). Copies of the application must be served by mail upon all parties who have appeared in the action, and also upon the State Bar at its San Francisco office at least 16 court days before the hearing under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.
III. ANALYSIS Here, the verified application to admit Rieko Yamauchi, who is a member of New York State Bar complies with Rule of Court, rule 9.40.
IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, the unopposed application for admission of Rieko Yamauchi pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff Ampere Computing LLC is GRANTED.
The Court executed the proposed order that was attached to the Application.
- oo0oo -
4