Judge: Alison Mackenzie, Case: 22SMCV00237, Date: 2023-05-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV00237    Hearing Date: May 10, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Bank of America, N.A. (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendants Paul Guez and Elizabeth Strauss Guez (“Defendants”) to collect amounts alleged owed to Plaintiff pursuant to a credit agreement. Plaintiff now brings an application for Adam J. Beedenbender to appear as its counsel pro hac vice in this action. Plaintiff’s application is unopposed.

Legal Standard

California Rule of Court, rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of a $50.00 fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.

The application must state: (1) the applicant’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title of each court and cause in which the applicant has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each application, and whether or not it was granted; and (6) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (d).)

Analysis

The Court finds the application satisfies the requirements of California Rule of Court, rule 9.40(d). Plaintiff has submitted a proof of service showing the application has been served on the other parties to this litigation and the State Bar of California. The Court notes Mr. Beedenbender has only been admitted pro hac vice in one action in California in the last two years, and while he previously applied for such admission in a second such action, the case was resolved before his application could be ruled on by the Court. (Beedenbender Decl. at ¶7.) Having received no opposition to Mr. Beedenbender’s application and good cause appearing, the Court GRANTS the application to allow Adam J. Beedenbender to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action.

Conclusion

The application to admit Adam J. Beedenbender as counsel pro hac vice is GRANTED.