Judge: Andrew E. Cooper, Case: 22CHCV01236, Date: 2023-06-29 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assisant in North Valley Department F51, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2251.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and specially pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org. All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies).

Case Number: 22CHCV01236    Hearing Date: June 29, 2023    Dept: F51

Dept. F-51  

Date: 6/29/23 

Case #22CHCV01236

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F-51

APPLICATION/MOTION TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE

Motion/Application filed: 5/24/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Trisura Specialty Insurance Company (“Defendant”)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff Super GD Express, Inc. (“Plaintiff”)

NOTICE: ok   

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order approving the application of Michelle M. Bracke to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant Trisura Specialty Insurance Company.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is granted.

ANALYSIS 

The applicant declares under penalty of perjury that she is not a resident of the State of California, regularly employed in the State, or regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State. (Decl. of Michelle M. Bracke, ¶ 2; Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40(a).)

Pursuant to rule 9.40(d) of the California Rules of Court, the application states:

(1)  The applicant's residence and office address; (Bracke Decl. ¶¶ 3–4.)

(2)  The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (Id. at ¶ 5.)

(3)  That the applicant is a licensee in good standing in those courts; (Id. at ¶ 6.)

(4)  That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (Id. at ¶ 7.)

(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; (Id. at ¶ 8.) and

(6)  The name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

The proof of service attached to the application states that on 5/24/23, Defendant served the application by mail on all other parties who have appeared in the matter. Defendant’s counsel also declares that on 5/22/23, the application was also mailed to the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. (Cal. Rules of Ct., rule 9.40(c)(1); Decl. of David H. Canter ¶¶ 5–6.)

Based on the foregoing, Counsel has satisfied all the requirements to be appear pro hac vice in this matter, and the motion is therefore granted.

CONCLUSION 

The motion is granted.