DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
VCU330698·tulare-civil·Civil·Civil
Hearing about 2 months agoGRANTED

JGI Wholesale Corp. vs. United Brands, LLC

Defendant's Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Benjamin M. Low

Hearing date
Jun 30, 2026
Department
2
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffJGI Wholesale Corp.
DefendantUnited Brands, LLC

Attorneys

Benjamin M. Lowfor Defendant
Colin A. Hardacre(The Law Offices of Colin A. Hardacre, APC)for Defendant

Ruling

Case No.: VCU330698 Date: June 30, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 2-The Honorable Bret D. Hillman Motion: Defendant's Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Benjamin M. Low Tentative Ruling: To grant the application Facts and Analysis The Court's file indicates that timely and proper notice was given to all parties affected to attorney Low's application to appear pro hac vice for Defendant United Brands, LLC. The Court finds that attorney Low meets the statutory requirements under California Rule of Court 9.40(a) to submit applications to appear pro hac vice before this Court, and that the contents of the application of attorney Low indicates association with California counsel Colin A. Hardacre of The Law Offices of Colin A. Hardacre, APC, and as such meet the statutory requirements of California Rule of Court 9.40(c) and (d). The Court's file for

this matter further indicates that that the applicable fees that must be paid to the State Bar of California under Rule 9.40(e) to support applications for admission pro hac vice have been tendered to the State Bar. The Court further notes that attorney Low's application meets the statutory requirements under California Rule of Court 9.40(d) for pro hac vice applications and that the prior appearances before the courts in this state are not sufficiently numerous to warrant denial of this application under California Rule of Court 9.40(b).

Based on the foregoing, the application of Low to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant in this action is granted. If no one requests oral argument, under Code of Civil Procedure section 1019.5(a) and California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312(a), no further written order is necessary. The minute order adopting this tentative ruling will become the order of the court and service by the clerk will constitute notice of the order. Court reporters are usually not available for law and motion matters in the civil division.

The parties and counsel must provide their own reporter if they want a transcript of the proceedings. Re: In the Matter of Betterton, Michael

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