DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24CV002510·sacramento·Civil·Civil
Hearing over 1 year agoDROPPED for defective service

JACKSON vs FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice of Christopher Stephens

Hearing date
May 14, 2025
Department
54
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJACKSON
DefendantFOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
DefendantAmazon.com Services LLC

Attorneys

Ruling

24CV002510: JACKSON vs FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 05/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice of Christopher Stephens in Department 54

Tentative Ruling

NOTICE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that any oral arguments regarding this tentative ruling will be heard in Department 28, located at 720 9th Street, Sacramento, CA, the Hon. Richard C. Miadich presiding. Should argument be requested by either party, the requesting party must call the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the hearing, request the hearing, and notify the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

Any party who wishes to contest the tentative ruling below must:

(1) request a hearing by calling the Law and Motion Oral Argument Request Line at (916) 874-2615, by 4:00 p.m. the Court day before the noticed hearing date, and leave a voicemail message (a) identifying themselves as the party requesting oral argument; (b) indicating the specific matter/motion for which they are requesting oral argument; and (c) confirming that they have notified the opposing party of their intention to appear; and

(2) advise the opposing party of the location and time of hearing pursuant to Local Rule 1.06.

If a hearing is not requested by 4:00 p.m. on the Court day before the noticed hearing date, the tentative ruling will become the final order of the Court.

If a hearing is requested, the Court prefers in-person attendance by the parties. However, parties may appear by Zoom unless the Court specifically orders in-person attendance. Parties choosing to appear by Zoom are reminded, however, that a Zoom appearance is still a formal appearance before the Court. Parties appearing via Zoom should do so from a quiet location, free from undue distractions, and wear attire suitable for an in-person court appearance.

The parties may join the Zoom session for hearing on the tentative ruling by audio and/or video through the following link:

https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/sscdept28

SIP Address:

16039062174@sip.zoomgov.com

(833) 568-8864

24CV002510: JACKSON vs FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 05/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice of Christopher Stephens in Department 54

ID: 16039062174

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

A Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) is required to be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge prior to the hearing, if not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list.

Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

TENTATIVE RULING

Attorney Christopher I. Stephens’ application to appear pro hac vice for Defendant Amazon.com Services LLC is UNOPPOSED but is DROPPED for defective service.

Each document filed in support of the application is accompanied by a proof of service. However, none of the proofs of service are signed.

Additionally, the proofs of service do not indicate that the application was served on the State Bar of California. While Mr. Stephens’ declaration states that the application “is concurrently being served on the State Bar of California at 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, California 94105, via its Admissions Information Management System website,” (Stephens Decl., ¶ 10), this is not reflected in the proof of service. Further, submitting a copy of the application through the State Bar’s online portal does not satisfy California Rules of Court rule 9.40(c)(1), which mandates that the application be filed “together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared and on the State Bar of California at its San

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

24CV002510: JACKSON vs FOLSOM CORDOVA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT 05/14/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice of Christopher Stephens in Department 54

Francisco office.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).) Thus, the application must be served on the State Bar via mail, and this must be reflected in the proof of service. The Court notes that the sample pro hac vice application on the State Bar’s website includes a sample proof of service that lists Office of Admissions, The State Bar of California, 180 Howard Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, and the only options for the manner of service are mail, hand delivery, or overnight delivery. This further indicates that the existence of the State Bar’s online portal to pay the application fee and upload a copy of the application does not excuse the requirement that the application also be served on the State Bar via mail.

Defective service deprives the court of jurisdiction to act. (Lee v. Placer Title Co. (1994) 28 Cal.App.4th 503, 509.)

Moving counsel is admonished that the notice of hearing does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06.

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