Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice for Lynn M. Geerdes
RG17876798: Poole VS Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. 07/08/2026 Hearing on Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice for Lynn M. Geerdes; filed by Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. (Defendant) CRS# A-17876798-009 in Department 21
Tentative Ruling - 07/02/2026 S. Raj Chatterjee
The Motion to Be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Twin Hill Acquisition Company, Inc. on 06/23/2026 is Granted.
Pursuant to Government Code section 70617(e)(2), on or before the anniversary of the date of this order Pro Hac Vice Applicant LYNN M. GEERDES shall pay a renewal fee of five hundred dollars ($500) for each year that Pro Hac Vice Applicant maintains pro hac vice status in this case. The Court hereby sets a compliance hearing for 07/14/2027 at 02:30 PM in Department 21 at Rene C. Davidson Courthouse. If the renewal fee has been paid at least 10 calendar days before the hearing, no appearance will be required.
The Court ORDERS that the Pro Hac Vice Applicant file a Notice of Renewal when paying the renewal fee. The Caption of the Notice of Renewal must identify the Pro Hac Vice Applicant by name.
Upon receipt of this order Counsel are to email the following information to the Dept 21 clerk at dept21@alameda.courts.ca.gov. Case Name and #; Date of the PHV order; First and Last Name; State Bar Number; Issuer State; Organization Name and address; Email address; Party they represent.
PLEASE NOTE: This tentative ruling will become the ruling of the court if uncontested by 04:00pm the day before your hearing. If you wish to contest the tentative ruling, then both notify opposing counsel directly and the court at the eCourt portal found on the courts website: www.alameda.courts.ca.gov.
If you have contested the tentative ruling or your tentative ruling reads, parties to appear, please use the following link to access your hearing at the appropriate date and time: https://alameda-courts-ca-gov.zoomgov.com/my/department21. If no party has contested the tentative ruling, then no appearance is necessary.
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?”