DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26STCV18525·la·Civil·Pro Hac Vice Admission
Hearing in 2 daysApplication of Groffsky granted; Application of Dalrymple requires clarification

Calderon, et al. v. Children's Hospital Los Angeles, et al.

Applications for Pro Hac Vice Admission (2x)

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
310
Prevailing
Mixed

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJosue Calderon
PlaintiffLisbeth Calderon Parreno
DefendantChildren's Hospital Los Angeles

Attorneys

Richard Groffskyfor Plaintiff
Micaela Dalrymplefor Plaintiff

Ruling

Case No.: 26STCV18525 Matter: Applications for Pro Hac Vice Admission (2x) Moving Party: Plaintiffs Josue Calderon and Lisbeth Calderon Parreno. Responding Party: Unopposed Notice: OK

Ruling: The Application of Groffsky is granted. The Application of Dalrymple requires clarification. Moving party to give notice. The Court encourages all parties to appear remotely via LA CourtConnect. If submitting on the Court's tentative ruling, please follow the instructions provided above. Plaintiffs Josue Calderon and Lisbeth Calderon Parreno seek pro hac vice admission for Richard Groffsky and Micaela Dalrymple. The Application of Groffsky is granted because it meets all requirements of Cal.

Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. The Application of Dalrymple requires clarification because it appears this is the 6th time counsel is moving for pro hac vice admission within the last 2 years, although two cases are listed twice. (Rule 9.4(b) ["Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application."].) Dalrymple should explain her circumstances at the hearing. Moving party to give notice. | Home -->)" -->

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