DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
25CECG00159·fresno·Probate·Civil
Hearing 3 months agoGRANTED

Gomez v. Installed Building Products, LLC

Application of Adam E. Primm to appear as counsel pro hac vice

Hearing date
Jun 9, 2026
Department
501
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffGomez
DefendantInstalled Building Products, LLC
DefendantBroken Drum Insulation Visalia, Inc.

Attorneys

Adam E. Primmfor Defendant

Ruling

(29) Tentative Ruling

Re: Gomez v. Installed Building Products, LLC Superior Court Case no. 25CECG00159

Hearing Date: June 9, 2026 (Dept. 501)

Motion: Application of Adam E. Primm to appear as counsel pro hac vice

If oral argument is timely requested, it will be entertained on Tuesday, June 16, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. in Department 403.

Tentative Ruling:

To grant the application. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)

Explanation:

Defendants Installed Building Products, LLC, and Broken Drum Insulation Visalia, Inc. have filed an application for attorney Ethan Adam E. Primm to appear in the abovetitled case, pro hac vice. The application complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, and no opposition has been filed. The application is therefore granted.

Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a) and Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5, subdivision (a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will serve as the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order.

Tentative Ruling

Issued By: SMC on 6/5/2026. (Judge’s initials) (Date)

6

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