DANLI CHENG, ET AL VS. CHUNLI ZHAO, ET AL
Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for James Hood; Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for John Radeck
Motion type
Parties
Attorneys
Ruling
May 13, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 4 23-CIV-05587 DANLI CHENG, ET AL VS. CHUNLI ZHAO, ET AL
DANLI CHENG MICHAEL C. MARTINEZ CHUNLI ZHAO JESSE MILLER
Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for James Hood
TENTATIVE RULING:
The unopposed application of James B. Hood to appear pro hac vice on behalf of defendant Forest Mushroom Food, Inc. is denied without prejudice. The application is not properly verified because it neither states where it was signed nor that it was signed under the laws of the State of California. The declaration further does not state that the applicant is a member in good standing of the courts of the State of South Carolina, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).
May 13, 2026, Law and Motion Calendar Judge Nicole S. Healy Department 28 ________________________________________________________________________
02:00 PM LINE 5 23-CIV-05587 DANLI CHENG, ET AL VS. CHUNLI ZHAO, ET AL
DANLI CHENG MICHAEL C. MARTINEZ CHUNLI ZHAO JESSE MILLER
Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for John Radeck
TENTATIVE RULING:
The unopposed application of John Radeck to appear pro hac vice on behalf of defendant Forest Mushroom Food, Inc. is denied without prejudice. The application is not properly verified because it neither states where it was signed nor that it was signed under the laws of the State of California. The declaration further does not state that the applicant is a member in good standing of the courts of the State of South Carolina, as required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).
Cited authorities
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?”