Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Susan W Furr; Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Molly McDiarmid
May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 10 25-CIV-02127 MILAN PATTERSON-TAY VS FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING CO LLC - CORPAY
MILAN PATRICIA PATTERSON-TAY ADAM ROSE FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING CO LLC - CORPAY ELISABETH A MADDEN
Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Susan W Furr
TENTATIVE RULING:
The unopposed application of Susan W. Furr to appear pro hac vice on behalf of defendant Corpay Technologies Operating Company, LLC. is DENIED without prejudice. The application is not properly verified because it neither states where it was signed nor that it was signed under the laws of the State of California. The declaration further does not state that the applicant is a member in good standing of the courts of the State of Louisiana, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.
May 20, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 11 25-CIV-02127 MILAN PATTERSON-TAY VS FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING CO LLC - CORPAY
MILAN PATRICIA PATTERSON-TAY ADAM ROSE FLEETCOR TECHNOLOGIES OPERATING CO LLC - CORPAY ELISABETH A MADDEN
Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice Molly McDiarmid
TENTATIVE RULING:
The unopposed application of Molly McDiarmid to appear pro hac vice on behalf of defendant Corpay Technologies Operating Company, LLC. is DENIED without prejudice. The application is not properly verified because it neither states where it was signed nor that it was signed under the laws of the State of California. The declaration further does not state that the applicant is a member in good standing of the courts of the State of Louisiana, as required by
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
If the tentative ruling is uncontested, it shall become the order of the court. Thereafter, plaintiff’s counsel shall prepare a written order consistent with the court’s ruling for the court’s signature, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 3.1312 and Local Rule 3.403(b)(iv), and provide written notice of the ruling to all parties who have appeared in this action. The order should be e-filed only, do not email or mail a hard copy to the court.