Department 58

Hearing Date: May 2, 2024

Case Name: Licea v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC

Case No.: 24STCV02041

Matter: Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Moving Parties: Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC

Responding Party: Unopposed

Tentative Ruling: The Court denies the Application to be admitted pro hac vice.

Defendant Rocket Mortgage, LLC moves for an order granting the admission of Kyle Tayman to appear on its behalf pro hac vice. The Court denies the application.

Legal Standard

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. The attorney cannot be a resident of California, employed in the state, or regularly engage in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the state. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a)(1)-(3), (c)(1).)

The written application must state: (1) the applicant’s residence and office address; (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)(1)-(6).)

Discussion

The provided declaration does not comply with the California Rule of Court 9.40(d)(1)-(6).

Kyle Tayman provides no representation that he has not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in California. He does represent that he resides in Maryland and provides his business and home address. (Tayman Decl., ¶ 1.) Strangely however, Tayman states both “[i]n the preceding two years, [he] ha[s] not filed an application to appear as counsel Pro hac vice in any state or federal court in the State of California. OR . . . [i]n the preceding two years, [he] ha[s] filed one application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state. On February 16, 2023, [he] filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the case of Linda E. Pittman v. Rocket Mortgage, LLC, Case No. 22STCV32781 . . ..” (Tayman Decl., ¶¶ 5-6.) These representations are contradictory.

Finally, Attorney Tayman represents that a $50.00 check was submitted to the State Bar of California for the pro hac vice fee and notice was given for this hearing. (Tayman Decl., ¶ 9.)

Accordingly, the Court denies without prejudice the Application of counsel, Kyle Tayman, to appear on behalf of Defendant pro hac vice.

At the hearing the Court will inquire of the applicant regarding the declaration and, if appropriate, order that an amended declaration be served and filed on or before May 6, 2024 at 12 noon Pacific Daylight Time for in chambers review. The Court suggests that a courtesy copy be emailed to the Court by this deadline.