DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
VCU311567·tulare-civil·Civil·Attorney Admission Pro Hac Vice
Hearing 3 months agoCONTINUED

Munger Bros., LLC vs. Nutrien AG Solutions, Inc.

Defendants' Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jeffrey R. Baron

Hearing date
May 18, 2026
Department
7
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Jun 1, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffMunger Bros., LLC
DefendantNutrien AG Solutions, Inc.

Attorneys

Jeffrey R. Baron(Bailey & Glasser LLP)for Defendant

Ruling

Case No.: VCU311567 Date: May 18, 2026 Time: 8:30 A.M. Dept. 7-The Honorable Nathan D. Ide Motion: Defendants' Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jeffrey R. Baron Tentative Ruling: To continue the hearing as to the application of attorney Jeffrey R. Baron of Bailey & Glasser LLP to appear as counsel p ro hac vice for Defendants to June 1, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept.

9. Facts and Analysis The Court's file has only the notice of motion and motion, the proof of service and the proposed order, but lacks the verified application of Baron as to the requirements of California Rule of Court 9.40. Therefore, the Court continues this matter to June 1, 2026, 8:30 am, Dept.

9. 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: Ureche, Oakes J. vs. Six-Gs Automotive, Inc.

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