Judge: Barbara M. Scheper, Case: 22STCV31828A, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV31828A Hearing Date: January 17, 2023 Dept: 30
Calendar No.
Landgrebe vs. Obagi Inc., et. al., Case No. 22STCV31828
Tentative Ruling
re: Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice
Plaintiff Susanne
Landgrebe (Plaintiff) opposes the application to admit counsel Jessica Miller pro
hac vice on the basis that counsel has made “repeated appearances” in
California. Under Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (b), “Absent special
circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause
for denial of an application.” Miller has appeared in four California cases pro
hac vice in the past two years. (Miller Decl. ¶ 5.)
The Court disagrees that four
appearances in two years constitutes “repeated appearances” under rule 9.40. Plaintiff
does not present any authority regarding what number of appearances would
violate this provision, and Miller’s four
applications in two years appears to be below the level of activity that the
rule is intended to prevent. (See Golba v.
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238
Cal.App.4th 1251, 1266 [upholding denial of pro hac vice application
where counsel “had appeared 12 times in California
state courts within the prior 11 months”].)
For comparison, in Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, the petitioner opposed an
attorney’s pro hac vice application on the basis that he “regularly
engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in
California,” where the attorney was representing the
respondent “in at least 16 disputes with third parties” in California, made
five trips to California in connection with those actions, and also made at
least eleven other business trips to California over three years. (Id.
at 710.) The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s decision to admit the
attorney, and stated that the question of whether his conduct constituted
regular engagement in substantial business or professional activities was “fairly close and one which the trial court therefore could
have properly resolved either way.” (Id. at 711.)
Miller’s
activity in California is significantly less than that of the attorney in Walter
E. Heller Western. Accordingly, the
application is granted.