Ex Parte Application to shorten time on PHV application; Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice
25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application to shorten time on PHV application for Eric Cottle CRS# A-155599-005 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 07/14/2026 Patrick McKinney
Defendants PPG Industries, Inc. and Mac's Distributing Company's Ex Parte Application for an order shortening time to hear their application for order granting pro hac vice admission of Eric R.I. Cottle ("Applicant") is GRANTED. The Application for Admission substantially complies with the requirements of CRC Rule 9.40 and is GRANTED.
The Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by PPG INDUSTRIES, INC. (Defendant) + CRS# 618214376559 scheduled for 09/09/2026 is advanced to this date and heard.
Pursuant to Government Code section 70617(e)(2), on or before the anniversary of the date of this order Pro Hac Vice Applicant Eric R.I. Cottle (representing PPG & Mac's) shall pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that Pro Hac Vice Applicant maintains pro hac vice status in this case. The Court hereby sets a compliance hearing for 07/29/2027 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. If the renewal fee has been paid at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, no appearance will be required.
Defendants PPG Industries, Inc. and Mac's Distributing Company's Counsel must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.
CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 12pm the day of the hearing.
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?”