DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
23SMCV06029·la·Civil·Probate
Hearing in about 4 hoursGRANTED

Yacoub v. Tuft, et al.

Pro Hac Vice Application

Hearing date
Aug 27, 2026
Department
M
Judge
Prevailing
Moving Party

Motion type

Browse all Other rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffEhab Yacoub, M.D.
PlaintiffLorine Mikheail
DefendantTuft

Attorneys

Canterfor Plaintiff

Ruling

CASE NO.: 23SMCV06029 MOTION: Pro Hac Vice Application HEARING DATE: 8/28/2025

Legal Standard California Rules of Court ("CRC"), rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State by way of written application upon due notice to all interested parties, as well as service on the State Bar in San Francisco with payment of a reasonable fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of California, does not work in California and does not perform regular or substantial business, professional or other activities in the State.

The written application must provide the following information: (1) applicant attorney's residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant attorney has been admitted and dates of admission; (3) a representation that the attorney applicant is a member in good standing in the courts of admission and is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (4) the title of each court and action in which the applicant attorney has appeared pro hac vice in this State in the preceding two years, if any; and (5) the name, address, and telephone number of the active California State Bar member who is counsel of record in the local action. (CRC Rule 9.40(d).)

ANALYSIS Lauren E.M. Thompson applies to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiffs Ehab Yacoub, M.D. and Lorine Mikheail. The declarations satisfy the requirements of rule 9.40. (Thompson Decl., P.P. 1-8; Canter Decl., P.P. 1-8.) Accordingly, the application is GRANTED.

Agency v. Range Media Partners, LLC, et al.

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