DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CV0005986·marin·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

MIRIAM GOLDSTEIN vs. JON GOLDSTEIN

MOTION – PRO HAC VICE

Hearing date
Jun 26, 2026
Department
L
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMiriam Goldstein
DefendantJon Goldstein

Attorneys

Evan I. Cohenfor Plaintiff

Ruling

On April 30, 2026, Plaintiff Miriam Goldstein filed a Notice of Application to appear Pro Hac Vice. The application explains that applicant Evan I. Cohen, Esq. is an attorney in good standing in the State of Connecticut and other jurisdictions, is not a member of the State Bar of California, and is not regularly engaged in business or the practice of law in California. He has been retained to represent Plaintiff Miriam Goldstein in this action.

Defendant has not filed a response, nor was an opposition to the application been filed. The failure to oppose is considered consent to the granting of the motion. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.54(c); Local Rule Marin, Civil 2.8G.1.)

Plaintiff’s application is therefore GRANTED in it’s entirely. Plaintiff to prepare the order.

Welcome.

Parties must comply with Marin County Superior Court Local Rules, Rule 2.10(A), (B), which provides that if a party wants to present oral argument, the party must contact the Court at (415) 444-7046 and all opposing parties by 4:00 p.m. the court day preceding the scheduled hearing. Notice may be by telephone or in person to all other parties that argument is being requested (i.e., it is not necessary to speak with counsel or parties directly.) Unless the Court and all parties have been notified of a request to present oral argument, no oral argument will be permitted except by order of the Court. In the event no party requests oral argument in accordance with Rule 2.10(B), the tentative ruling shall become the order of the court.

IT IS ORDERED that evidentiary hearings shall be in-person in Department L. For routine appearances, the parties may access Department L for video conference via a link on the court website. Kindly turn your camera on when your case is called and make sure the party or lawyer making the appearance is properly identified on the screen.

FURTHER ORDERED that the parties are responsible for ensuring that they have a good connection and that they are available for the hearing while using the virtual remote courtroom. If

the connection is inadequate, the Court may proceed with the hearing in the party’s absence. If it is determined that you are diving your car during the hearing, you will be removed from the virtual courtroom. (Yes, this happens).

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