DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV179470·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

BANDY, SR., et al. vs SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR- IN- INTEREST TO SAFETY-KLEEN CORP., et al.

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Hearing date
Jul 10, 2026
Department
520
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffDAN BANDY, SR.
PlaintiffLINDA BANDY
DefendantSAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC.
DefendantSAFETY-KLEEN CORP.

Attorneys

Keith E. Pattonfor Plaintiff

Ruling

26CV179470: BANDY, SR., et al. vs SAFETY-KLEEN SYSTEMS, INC., INDIVIDUALLY AND AS SUCCESSOR- IN- INTEREST TO SAFETY-KLEEN CORP., et al. 07/10/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Dan Bandy, Sr. (Plaintiff) + CRS# 641595254797 in Department 520

Tentative Ruling - 07/07/2026 Jamilah A. Jefferson

The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Dan Bandy, Sr., Linda Bandy on 04/27/2026 is Granted.

The Application of Keith E. Patton, Esq. for leave to appear in this case as counsel Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs DAN BANDY, SR. and LINDA BANDY is GRANTED.

The Court, having reviewed the application of Mr. Patton, and good cause appearing, IT IS ORDERED that the application is granted and that Keith E. Patton, Esq. is authorized to appear in this case as counsel Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiffs DAN BANDY, SR. and LINDA BANDY.

NOTICE: This tentative ruling will automatically become the court’s final order on July 10, 2026 unless, by no later than 4:00 P.M. on July 9, 2026, a party to the action notifies BOTH: 1) the court by emailing Dept520@alameda.courts.ca.gov; AND 2) all opposing counsel or selfrepresented parties (by telephone or email) that the party is contesting this tentative ruling.

The subject line (RE:) of the email must state: “Request for CONTESTED HEARING: [the case name], [number].” When a party emails to contest a tentative ruling, the party must identify the specific holding(s) within the ruling they wish to contest via oral argument.

The court does not provide court reporters for hearings in civil departments. A party who wants a record of the proceedings must engage a private court reporter. (Local Rule 3.95.) Any privately retained court reporter must also participate via video conference. Their email must be provided to the court at the time the Notice of Contest is emailed.

ALL CONTESTED LAW AND MOTION HEARINGS ARE CONDUCTED VIA REMOTE VIDEO unless an in person appearance is required by the court. Invitations to participate in the video proceeding will be sent by the court upon receipt of timely notice of contest. A party may give email notice that they will appear in court in person for the hearing, however all other counsel/parties and the JUDGE MAY APPEAR REMOTELY.

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share