Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 22STCV30501, Date: 2024-01-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV30501    Hearing Date: February 13, 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 November 15, 2023, Plaintiffs Hualun Wang, Hua Sun, and Hualun Wang as successor in interest to the survival action of Peng Wang (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant application to admit Richard E. Norman (“Norman”) as Counsel Pro Hac Vice.  

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). Norman’s verified application contains the following information: 

1. Office and residence address (Norman Decl. ¶¶ 1–2.) 

2. The courts to which he has been admitted: Texas, and its corresponding U.S. District Courts, Supreme Court of the United States, Fifth, Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuits (Id. ¶ 5–6.) 

3. Evidence that he is a member in good standing these courts (Id. ¶ 5–6.) 

4. Evidence he is not suspended or disbarred in any state (Id., ¶ 6.) 

5. Norman declares he has not applied to appear pro hac vice in the preceding two years in any California action (Id., ¶ 7.) 

6.      Name, address, and phone number of Brian R. Strange, the California attorney representing Plaintiffs in this action. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Norman is not a resident of California. (Norman Decl. ¶ 4.) Norman also declares he is not employed in California. (Id.)

However, he does not declare that he is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities, in the State of California.

Also, 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, while there is proof of the $50 application fee, 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, Plaintiffs’ application for Richard E. Norman to appear as counsel pro hac vice is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling to all parties by February 14, 2024 and file a proof of service of such.

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 November 15, 2023, Plaintiffs Hualun Wang, Hua Sun, and Hualun Wang as successor in interest to the survival action of Peng Wang (“Plaintiffs”) filed the instant application to admit R. Martin Weber, Jr. (“Weber”) as Counsel Pro Hac Vice. 

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). Weber’s verified application contains the following information: 

1. Office and residence address (Weber Decl. ¶¶ 1–2.) 

2. The courts to which he has been admitted: Texas, and its corresponding U.S. District Courts, U.S. District Courts for Eastern and Western Dist. of Arkansas, Eastern Dist. of Michigan, and the Fifth Circuit (Id. ¶ 5–6.) 

3. Evidence that he is a member in good standing these courts (Id. ¶ 5–6.) 

4. Evidence he is not suspended or disbarred in any state (Id., ¶ 6.) 

5. Weber provides the case number, name, and date of filing a previous application for pro hac vice, and that it was granted. However, he does not provide the name of the court where the application was filed. (Id., ¶ 7.) 

6.      Name, address, and phone number of Brian R. Strange, the California attorney representing Plaintiffs in this action. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Weber is not a resident of California. (Id. ¶ 4.) Weber also declares he is not employed in California. (Id.)

However, he does not declare that he is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities, in the State of California. He also does not provide the name of the court where his previous application was filed.

Also, 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, while there is proof of the $50 application fee, 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, Plaintiffs’ application for R. Martin Weber, Jr. to appear as counsel pro hac vice is denied without prejudice.

Plaintiffs shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling to all parties by February 14, 2024 and file a proof of service of such.