DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26-CIV-04156·sanmateo·Civil·Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Hearing in about 3 hoursDENIED

THE BURKARD SCHOOL VS. JENNIFER STONE, ET AL

PLAINTIFF THE BURKARD SCHOOL’S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OF ALLISON M. LANGE GARRISON AND AUSTIN J. SPILLANE

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
28
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTHE BURKARD SCHOOL
DefendantJENNIFER STONE

Attorneys

JEFFERY D. WOHLfor Plaintiff

Ruling

August 19, 2026 Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________ 2:00 PM LINE 9 26-CIV-04156 THE BURKARD SCHOOL VS. JENNIFER STONE, ET AL

THE BURKARD SCHOOL JEFFERY D. WOHL JENNIFER STONE PRO PER

PLAINTIFF THE BURKARD SCHOOL'S MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE OFALLISON M. LANGE GARRISON AND AUSTIN J. SPILLANE

TENTATIVE RULING:

The unopposed applications of Allison M. Lange Garrison and Austin J. Spillane to appear pro hac vice on behalf of plaintiff are denied without prejudice. The verified applications do not state that the applicants are members in good standing of the courts of Minnesota as required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d). In addition, counsel have not provided proof that the State Bar was given notice of the August 19, 2026, hearing date.

If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, providing written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), which states in part that the “prevailing party on a tentative ruling is required to prepare a proposed order repeating verbatim the tentative ruling” (emphasis added). The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.

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