DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV154048·alameda·Civil·Civil
Hearing todayGRANTED

JAYAKUMAR vs AMAZON.COM, INC., et al.

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Hearing date
Aug 19, 2026
Department
20
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$500

Parties

PlaintiffUma Jayakumar
DefendantAMAZON.COM, INC.

Attorneys

Robert E. Pricefor Plaintiff

Ruling

25CV154048: JAYAKUMAR vs AMAZON.COM, INC., et al. 08/19/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Uma Jayakumar (Plaintiff) CRS# 134577128391 in Department 20

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Thomas Weathers

The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Uma Jayakumar on 06/26/2026 and Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Uma Jayakumar on 08/05/2026 are Granted.

The unopposed application of Robert E. Price to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff Uma Jayakumar is GRANTED. On or before the anniversary date of this order, counsel must pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500). (Gov. Code § 70617(e)(2).)

If a party does not timely contest the foregoing Tentative Ruling and appear at the hearing, the Tentative Ruling will become the order of the court.

HOW DO I CONTEST A TENTATIVE RULING?

THROUGH ECOURT Notify the Court and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing, and briefly identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps: 1. Log into eCourt Public Portal 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select "Search" 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select "Click to Contest this Ruling" 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting 8. Select "Proceed" BY EMAIL Send an email to the DEPARTMENT CLERK and all the other parties no later than 4:00 PM one court day before the scheduled hearing. This will permit the department clerk to send invitations to counsel to appear remotely.

BOTH ECOURT AND EMAIL notices are required.

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