DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
26CV489886·santaclara·Civil·Pro Hac Vice Application
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

Good Samaritan Hospital, L.P. et al. v. County of Santa Clara

Application of Samuel Givertz to appear pro hac vice

Hearing date
Jun 2, 2026
Department
10
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGood Samaritan Hospital, L.P.
DefendantCounty of Santa Clara

Attorneys

Samuel Givertzfor Defendant

Ruling

SUPERIOR COURT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA Department 10 Honorable Jeffrey B. El-Hajj Blanca Than, Courtroom Clerk 191 North First Street, San Jose, CA 95113 Telephone: 408-882-2210

DATE: June 2, 2026 TIME: 9:00 A.M. / 9:01 A.M. To contest the ruling, call (408) 808-6856 before 4:00 P.M. Make sure to let the other side know before 4:00 P.M. that you plan to contest the ruling. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1308(a)(1); Local Rule 8.D.)

**Please specify the issue to be contested when calling the Court and counsel**

9:01 A.M. LINE # CASE # CASE TITLE RULING Line 1 24CV434168 Toll Bros, Inc. v. Lefco, Order of examination: parties ordered to appear. Inc. a California Corporation Line 2 24CV434168 Toll Bros, Inc. v. Lefco, Order of examination: parties ordered to appear. Inc. a California Corporation Line 3 2015-1-CV- Vishal Gobhil et al. v. Order of examination: parties ordered to appear. 288617 IDC Technologies, Inc. (IDC) et al. Line 4 26CV489886 Good Samaritan Application of Samuel Givertz to appear pro hac vice for defendant Hospital, L.P. et al. v. County of Santa Clara. No objection filed. Good cause appearing, County of Santa Clara the application is GRANTED. Moving party to submit proposed order.

- oo0oo -

5

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