DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
24WM000101·sacramento·Civil·Administrative/Public Record
Hearing about 1 year agoDENIED, without prejudice

GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Hearing date
Aug 29, 2025
Department
21
Judge
Prevailing
Opposing Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT
DefendantTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Ruling

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 08/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in Department 21

Tentative Ruling

The following shall constitute the Court’s tentative ruling on Petitioner’s Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice which is scheduled to be heard by the Court on Friday, August 29, 2025, at 11:00 a.m. in Department 21. The tentative ruling shall become the final ruling of the Court unless a party wishing to be heard so advises the clerk of this Department no later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day preceding the hearing, and further advises the clerk that such party has notified the other side of its intention to appear.

Oral argument shall be limited to no more than 20 minutes per side.

Parties requesting services of a court reporter will need to 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. Parties may contact Court- Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore by utilizing the list of Court Approved Official Reporters Pro Tempore available at https://www.saccourt.ca.gov/court-reporters/docs/crtrp- 13.Pdf

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

If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding 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.

Petitioner has filed an application for admission pro hac vice for the following counsel:

Zachary C. Larsen

The application to appear as counsel pro hac vice is unopposed. However, the applicant failed to comply, in full, with Rule 9.40, subdivision (d)(5). This subdivision requires the applicant to state the “title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application

24WM000101: GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY & OVERSIGHT vs THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 08/29/2025 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice in Department 21

to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted ” The applicant has provided the title of each court case in which the applicant has filed such an application; however, the dates and statuses of these applications are missing. Accordingly, the application is DENIED, without prejudice.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

In the event that this tentative ruling becomes the final ruling of the Court, the Court’s minute order will be effective immediately. No formal order or other notice is required. (Code Civ. Proc. § 1019.5; CRC Rule 3.1312.)

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