Marilyn Gilbert vs Aidan Conlan et al

discussed above in regard to the first, second, and third causes of action asserted in the SAC. Noted above, the SAC alleges only that the "staff" of Nutiva was "absorbed" by Bioriginal on September 30, 2024, after the date Plaintiff received PO One and PO Two from Nutiva. The same reasoning and analysis apply. For the same or similar reasons discussed above, the court will sustain the Bioriginal Demurrer to the first, second, and third causes of action asserted in the SAC, with leave to amend.

(4) The Li Application "A person who is not a licensee of the State Bar but who is an attorney in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state, may in the discretion of such court be permitted upon written application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, provided that an active licensee of the State Bar is associated as attorney of record." (Cal. Rules of Court, rule. 9.40(a).)

The Li Application shows that attorney Li resides in Mineola, New York. (Li Dec., P. 1; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a)(1).) There is no information or evidence to suggest that attorney Li is "[r]egularly employed in" or "[r]egularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California." (Li Dec., P. 6; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a)(2), (3).) The court also has no record showing that attorney Li has made repeated appearances under California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. (Cal Rules of Court, rule 9.40(b).)

The Li Application is verified, and the attached proof of service shows or suggests that the Li Application, together with notice of the hearing on that application, was served on all parties who have appeared in this case and the State Bar at its San Francisco office. (Li Application at pdf pp. 6-7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).) The notice of hearing also appears to have been given within the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005. (Ibid.)

The Li Application states attorney Li's residence and office addresses in New York; identifies the courts to which attorney Li has been admitted to practice and the dates of each admission; and shows that attorney Li is a licensee in good standing in those courts and is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court. (Li Dec., P.P. 1-5; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(1)-(5).) Attorney Li states that they filed an application to appear pro hac vice in Superior Court of Los Angeles County case no. 24SMCV03867 entitled Leonard H. Lyons v. Sara Ledterman, which was granted on November 18, 2025. (Li Dec., P. 7; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(5).)

The Li Application also shows that attorney Li is associated with Lewis Zirogiannis, who is counsel of record for the Hummingbird Defendants and who is an active licensee of the State Bar. (Li Dec., P. 8; Cal Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(6).) The Li Application includes the address and telephone number of attorney Zirogiannis. (Ibid.) In support of the Li Application, attorney Zirogiannis states that attorney Li has been assisting them with the substantive issues in the case, and that the Hummingbird Defendants seek to have attorney Li serve as their counsel for the matter. (Zirogiannis Dec., P. 2.)

For all reasons discussed above, the Li Application is procedurally compliant and sufficient to show that attorney Li is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. Therefore, and for all reasons discussed above, the court will exercise its discretion to grant the Li Application, and to permit attorney Li to appear in this case as counsel pro hac vice.

Tentative Ruling: Marilyn Gilbert vs Aidan Conlan et al Tentative Ruling: Marilyn Gilbert vs Aidan Conlan et al Case Number

Case Type Civil Law & Motion Hearing Date / Time Fri, 08/21/2026 - 10:00 Nature of Proceedings