DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
SC20210148·eldorado·Civil·Civil
Hearing 5 months agoCONTINUED

HAMILTON v. HEAVENLY VALLEY LTD.

Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Susanna Barron

Hearing date
Mar 20, 2026
Department
Four
Judge
Prevailing
N/A

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffHamilton
DefendantHeavenly Valley Ltd.

Attorneys

Ruling

LAW AND MOTION CALENDAR MARCH 20, 2026

1. HAMILTON v. HEAVENLY VALLEY LTD., SC20210148

Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Susanna Barron

On February 03, 2026, Rebecca Peterson-Fisher submitted a declaration stating that

the application and payment were being contemporaneously filed with the State Bar of

California. (Peterson-Fisher Decl., ¶ 3.) To date, however, there is no proof of service

showing that the application was served upon the State Bar of California at its San

Francisco office, or proof of payment of the application fee to the State Bar. (Cal. Rules

of Court, Rule 9.40, subds. (c)(1), (e).) If counsel submits the required documentation prior to the hearing, the court

intends to grant the application with no appearance required. Otherwise, appearances

are required at 1:30 p.m., Friday, March 20, 2026, in Department Four.

TENTATIVE RULING # 1: APPEARANCES ARE REQUIRED AT 1:30 P.M., FRIDAY,

MARCH 20, 2026, IN DEPARTMENT FOUR.

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