DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23STCV25080·la·Civil·Class Action
Hearing todayGRANTED

BRITTANY LATTIMORE AND ALL INDIVIDUALS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC

APPLICATION OF DORI A. BUTLER TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC.

Hearing date
Aug 24, 2026
Department
311
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Aug 27, 2027

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffBRITTANY LATTIMORE
DefendantMOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC

Ruling

(Stanley Mosk Courthouse: Dept. 311) August 24, 2026 DEPARTMENT 311 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling

BRITTANY LATTIMORE AND ALL INDIVIDUALS SIMILARLY SITUATED vs MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC, A DELAWARE LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY | August 24, 2026 8:30 AM | | | NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: APPLICATION OF DORI A. BUTLER TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE AS COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT MOVEMENT MORTGAGE, LLC. RULING: The Application for counsel to appear pro hac vice in this case is granted. The Court sets a non-appearance case review for August 27, 2027, at 8:30 a.m., in Department 311, regarding payment of any pro hac vice renewal fees per Government Code section 70617, subdivision (e)(2).

Defendant to give notice. ANALYSIS: By the Application, filed July 29, 2026, an attorney residing in Georgia, requests leave to appear pro hac vice for Defendant, on grounds that it satisfies the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. There is no opposition, as is usual for these applications. A judge's determination of whether to grant an application to appear pro hac vice is evaluated under the abuse-of-discretion standard. (E.g., United

States Golf Ass'n v. Arroyo Software Corp. (1999) 69 Cal.App.4th 607, 624.) There is no statement of the limit of court discretion in ruling on applications to appear pro hac vice in civil cases. (Sheller v. Superior Court (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1713.) The Court finds that the Application sufficiently complies with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, including the applicant's declaration addressing the rule elements. Additionally, no reason appears to deny the Application, including because of the absence of any opposition.

Accordingly, the Court grants the Application. Case Number: 24STCV30619 Hearing Date: August 24, 2026 Dept: 311 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES Civil Division Central District, Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Department 311 Tentative Ruling 24STCV30619 GIUSEPPE LOSAVIO vs 362NCD BEVERLY HILLS LLC. | August 24, 2026 8:30 AM | | | NATURE OF PROCEEDINGS: PLAINTIFF'S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF CLASS ACTION AND PAGA SETTLEMENT. RULING: The Court grants the Motion. The Court will complete page 7 of the Proposed Order received on July 22, 2026, and sign and file it.

Plaintiff to give notice. I. BACKGROUND On November 20, 2024, GIUSEPPE LOSAVIO (Plaintiff) filed a Complaint against 362NCD BEVERLY HILLS LLC (Defendant). On February 4, 2026, Plaintiff filed the First Amended Complaint (FAC), listing Causes of Action

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