DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV155599·alameda·Civil·Pro Hac Vice Admission
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al.

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Hearing date
Jul 16, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Jul 15, 2027

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$500

Parties

PlaintiffAmir Azar
Defendant3M Company

Attorneys

Donald Blydenburghfor Plaintiff

Ruling

25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/16/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by AMIR AZAR (Plaintiff) CRS# 481150107394 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/14/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by AMIR AZAR on 06/02/2026 is Granted.

Plaintiff Amir Azar’s (“Plaintiff”) unopposed Motion for Permission for attorney Donald Blydenburgh (“Blydenburgh” or “Applicant”) to appear Pro Hac Vice (the “Application”) is GRANTED. The Application complies with the requirements of CRC Rule 9.40.

The Court advises Applicant that on or before the anniversary of the date of the Final Order, Applicant must pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500), if the present action is still pending. (Govt. Code § 70617(e)(2).)

The Court sets a compliance hearing of Thursday, 7/15/2027 at 3:00 p.m. in Dept.

18. If the renewal fee is paid at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the compliance hearing, no appearances will be necessary.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select Proceed.

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