Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
According to moving counsel, the defendant is no longer owned and controlled by Dr. Mikhael (moving counsel’s client).
Moving attorney SHALL give notice and file a proof of service within 14 days, including a courtesy notice to Pain Medicine’s apparent principal address in Fountain Valley, CA (per the Statement of Information filed with the State of California (Supporting Decl., filed 4/27/26, Exh. A) and to Pain Medicine’s counsel of record in Case No. 30-2026- 01550474 (Suppl. Decl. of Craig S. Robson, filed 6/18/26, ¶ 6).
3 Capital One, N.A. Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice vs. McKinley The court GRANTS Attorney DAVID OTTO’s unopposed Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendants SERENITY CARE HEALTH and SERENITY HEALTH WE CORPORATION.
The court finds that the requirements for pro hac vice admission have been met here. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)
Moving Attorney to give notice.
4 De Yoo vs. Serenity Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Care Health OFF-CALENDAR. (See 6/25/26 Minute Order [hearing vacated after notice of withdrawal filed].)
5 Yum vs. U.S. Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Bancorp The court GRANTS Attorney LANCE P. FELICIEN’s unopposed Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant SOFI LENDING CORP.
The court finds that the requirements for pro hac vice admission have been met here. (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)
Moving Attorney to give notice.
6 Malki vs. Karanouh Motion for Attorney’s Fees
The court GRANTS Defendant ABDULMAJID KARANOUH’s motion for attorneys’ fees pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 425.16 (re anti-SLAPP).
Defendant is awarded attorneys’ fees in the total amount of $12,112.50.
Defendant prevailed on an anti-SLAPP motion and Section 425.16(c) therefore authorizes attorneys’ fees here.
Plaintiff does not apparently dispute that the Defendant is entitled to attorneys’ fees. Rather, Plaintiff disputes the amount requested.
Lodestar Calculation
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?”
“[T]he fee setting inquiry in California ordinarily begins with the ‘lodestar,’ i.e., the number of hours reasonably expended multiplied by the reasonable hourly rate.” (PLCM Group v. Drexler (2000) 22 Cal. 4th 1084,1095.) “Under this method, the court ‘begins with a touchstone or lodestar figure, based on the “careful compilation of the time spent and reasonable hourly compensation of each attorney ... involved in the presentation of the case.’ ” [Citation.] The lodestar ‘should ordinarily include compensation for all the hours reasonably spent’ on the case [citation], but the court must ‘carefully review attorney documentation of
4