Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV07904, Date: 2024-06-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV07904    Hearing Date: June 11, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

BACKGROUND

On March 3, 2022, Plaintiff Mitra Nazeri Regalado (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Taubman Centers, Inc. dba Beverly Center, Environmental Service Concepts, and Doe 1 to 50 for negligence and premises liability based on an alleged slip and fall.

On August 29, 2024, Defendant Environmental Service Concepts (“Defendant”) filed the instant application to admit Colin Crug as Counsel Pro Hac Vice (“Crug”).

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rules 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 employed or regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities, in the State of California. An active licensee of the State Bar of California must also be associated as attorney of record.

“A person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. The notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c).)

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(d).) 

DISCUSSION

Applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice must contain the facts specified in California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d). Crug’s verified application contains the following information: 

1. Office and residence address (Crug Decl. ¶ 2.) 

2. The courts to which he has been admitted: Washington State Bar, admitted October 17, 2017. (Id. ¶ 3.) 

3. Evidence that he is a member in good standing in these courts (Ibid.) 

4. Evidence he is not suspended or disbarred in any state (Ibid.) 

5. Crug declares he has not applied to appear pro hac vice in the preceding two years in any California action (Id. ¶ 4.) 
6. Name, address, and phone number of Shain Wasser, the California attorney representing Defendant in this action. (Id. ¶ 1.) 

However, Mr. Crug has not stated in his verified application that he is not a resident of California and is not employed in California, or regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities, in the State of California.

A copy of the Application was uploaded to the State Bar of California on April 29, 2024. (Wasser Decl. ¶ 5.) Defendant’s counsel also declares that the $50 filing fee was paid. (Ibid., Exh. A.)

However, according to the proof of service, all parties have not been served by mail as required in California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1). Additionally, there is no proof of service by mail of the application on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office.  

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, Defendant’s application for Colin Crug to appear as counsel pro hac vice is denied.

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.