DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV162809·alameda·Civil·Pro Hac Vice Admission
Hearing todayGRANTED

MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al.

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice; Ex Parte Application for an order shortening time

Hearing date
Aug 28, 2026
Department
18
Prevailing
Moving Party
Next hearing
Sep 16, 2027

Motion type

Browse all Ex Parte Application rulings statewide →

Monetary amounts referenced

$500

Parties

PlaintiffMENOR
DefendantCHANEL, INC.
DefendantLONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, L.L.C.
DefendantCVS Pharmacy, Inc.
DefendantSafeway Inc.
DefendantWalgreen Co.

Attorneys

Michael Lisakfor Defendant

Ruling

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, L.L.C., individually, as alter-ego of, and as successor-in-interest to LONGS DRUG STORES CALIFORNIA, INC. (Defendant) + CRS# 882002002619 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/28/2026 Patrick McKinney

Defendant CVS Pharmacy, Inc.; Longs Drug Stores California, LLC; Safeway Inc.; and Walgreen Co.'s Ex Parte Application for an order shortening time to hear their application for order granting pro hac vice admission of Michael Lisak ("Applicant") is GRANTED. The Amended Application for Admission substantially complies with the requirements of CRC Rule 9.40 and is GRANTED.

Pursuant to Government Code section 70617(e)(2), on or before the anniversary of the date of this order Pro Hac Vice Applicant Michael Lisak (representing CVS et al.) shall pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that Pro Hac Vice Applicant maintains pro hac vice status in this case. The Court hereby sets a compliance hearing for 09/16/2027 at 01:30 PM in Department 18 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. If the renewal fee has been paid at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, no appearance will be required.

Defendants CVS et al.'s counsel must forthwith serve a copy of this order on all counsel of record and self-represented parties. The Court orders counsel to obtain a copy of this order from the eCourt portal.

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