MOTION TO ADMIT COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE
Set for Law and Motion/Discovery Calendar on Wednesday, March 11, 2026, Line 9. Plaintiff Erin Weiler's unopposed Motion to Admit Counsel Eric Dwoskin Pro Hac Vice is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Additionally, the parties are ORDERED TO ACT REGARDING COMPLEX DESIGNATION.
Counsel Eric Dwoskin has failed to declare '[t]he title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted." (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(5).) Counsel declares he "ha[s] not filed any applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this Court in the past two years." Counsel's testimony begs the question whether he has applied to appear PHV in any of the hundred-plus other courts in this state? The clear intent of the requirement is to assure the court counsel is not seeking to appear PHV with such frequency that they should seek admission to the State Bar rather than PHV status. On this record the court cannot make the necessary determination.
Additionally, the parties are advised that based on a review of California Rules of Court, rule 3.400 et seq and the docket to date, the court understands this case is likely complex under California Rules of Court, rule 3.400 et seq., yet the parties have not yet applied for complex designation. The court orders the parties forthwith to meet and confer regarding complex designation and pursue complex designation under California Rules of Court, rule 3.403(b) and San Francisco Local Rule, rule 3.5(C)(2)&(3).
The court's notice denying complex designation for failure to file an application is not a bar to filing an application. If any matter is noticed for this department in the future, the parties must file a joint statement regarding the status of complex designation at the time the motion is filed. The parties are ordered to file such a joint statement five court days before the hearing or continued hearing on any pending demurrer or motion with a courtesy copy delivered to the department within 24 hours of lodging the statement for filing.
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?”
Moving Party must prepare a proposed order which repeats verbatim the substantive portion of the tentative ruling and email it to contestdept302tr@sftc.org prior to the time set for hearing. Moving Party is ordered promptly to serve notice of the executed order.
For the 9:00 a.m. calendar, all attorneys and parties may appear in Department 302 remotely or in person. Remote hearings will be conducted by videoconference using Zoom. (Dept. 302 Zoom ID 160 409 7690; Passcode 516287.) To appear remotely at the hearing, go to the court's website at sfsuperiorcourt.org under "Online Services," navigate to "Tentative Rulings," and click on the appropriate link, or dial the corresponding phone number.
Any party who contests a tentative ruling must send an email to contestdept302tr@sftc.org with a copy to all other parties by 4pm stating, without argument, the portion(s) of the tentative ruling that the party contests. The subject line of the email shall include the line number, case name and case number. The text of the email shall include the name and contact information, including email address, of the attorney or party who will appear at the hearing.
The court no longer provides a court reporter in the Law & Motion Department. Parties may retain their own reporter, who may appear in the courtroom or remotely. A retained reporter must be a California certified court reporter (CSR), for only a CSR's transcript may be used in California courts. If a CSR is being retained, include in your email all of the following: their name, CSR and telephone numbers, and their individual work email