Ex Parte Application for an Order Advancing and Shortening Time on Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Admitting Luke Pfeifer; Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice
26CV193398: HOOPER, et al. vs A.O. SMITH CORPORATION, et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Order Advancing and Shortening Time on Plaintiffs’ Application for an Order Admitting Luke Pfeifer CRS# A- 193398-001 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 07/17/2026 Patrick McKinney
Plaintiffs Dennis Hooper and Anna Hooper's Ex Parte Application for an order shortening time to hear their application for order granting pro hac vice admission of Luke Pfeifer ("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 CRS# 145409576420 scheduled for 09/02/2026 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 Luke Pfeifer (representing Plaintiffs) 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 08/05/2027 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.
Plaintiffs' counsel must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and selfrepresented 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 4pm the day before 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?”