Ex Parte Application for an Ex Parte Hearing to advance the hearing date; Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice
26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/04/2026 Hearing on Ex Parte Application for an Ex Parte Hearing to advance the hearing date of Nathan Laws Pro Hac Vice CRS# A-162809-014 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 08/03/2026 Patrick McKinney
Defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance, Inc.'s Ex Parte Application for an order shortening time to hear their application for order granting pro hac vice admission of Nathan J. Law ("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 ULTA SALON, COSMETICS & FRAGRANCE, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 809085377423 scheduled for 09/08/2026 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 Nathan J. Law (representing Ulta) 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 08/19/2027 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.
Defendant Ulta'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 12:00 pm 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?”