DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CV028146·sacramento·Civil·Complex Civil
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

MLF DOE #1-5 vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al.

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Hearing date
May 22, 2026
Department
8B
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party
Appearance
Not required

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMLF DOE #1-5
DefendantSTATE OF CALIFORNIA

Attorneys

Abigael R. McGuirefor Plaintiff

Ruling

25CV028146: MLF DOE #1-5 vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice Abigael R. McGuire in Department 8B

Tentative Ruling

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 22 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8B OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION.***

Moving counsel’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06. Moving counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel and advise them of Local Rule 1.06, the Court’s tentative ruling procedure, and the manner to request a hearing.

The application of Abigael R. McGuire for admission pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiffs in the underlying MLF Doe #1-5 Plaintiffs v. State of California, et al. action (Case No. 25CV028146) is UNOPPOSED and GRANTED.

The Court will sign the Proposed Order submitted with Counsel’s application.

To request oral argument on this matter, you must call Department 8B at (916) 874- 5762 by 4:00 p.m., the court day before this hearing and notification of oral argument must be made to the opposing party/counsel. If no call is made, the tentative ruling becomes the order of the court. (Local Rule 1.06.)

Parties requesting services of a court reporter may arrange for private court reporter services at their own expense, pursuant to Government code §68086 and California Rules of Court, Rule 2.956. Requirements for requesting a court reporter are listed in the Policy for Official Reporter Pro Tempore available on the Sacramento Superior Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-6a.pdf. The list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore is available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp-13.Pdf.

If you are not using a reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list, a Stipulation and Appointment of Official Reporter Pro Tempore (CV/E-206) must be signed by each party, the private court reporter, and the Judge. The signed form must be filed with the clerk prior to the hearing.

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must

25CV028146: MLF DOE #1-5 vs STATE OF CALIFORNIA, A PUBLIC ENTITY, et al. 05/22/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice Abigael R. McGuire in Department 8B

submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211). The form must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the hearing is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided.

If oral argument is requested, the Parties are encouraged to appear via Zoom with the links below:

To join by Zoom link - https://saccourt-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/j/16184738886 To join by phone dial (833) 568-8864 ID 16184738886

Counsel for Plaintiff is directed to notice all parties of this order.

Please note that the Complex Civil Case Department now provides information to assist you in managing your complex case on the Court website at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/civil/complex-civil-cases.aspx. The Court strongly encourages parties to review this website regularly to stay abreast of the most recent complex civil case procedures. Please refer to the website before directly contacting the Court Clerk for information.

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