Department 58

Hearing Date: July 31, 2023

Case Name: Kaveh Fasih v. The Purple Mixer, Inc. d/b/a Miss Jones Baking Co.

Case No.: 24STCV08425

Motion: Pro Hac Vice

Moving Party: Amelia Courtney Hritz

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: GRANT Counsel Amelia Courtney Hritz Motion for Pro Hac Vice

On April 4, 2024, Plaintiff Kaveh Fasih the complaint against Defendant The Purple Mixer, Inc. d/b/a Miss Jones Baking Co. alleging common law fraud and violation of California consumers legal remedies act California civil code § 1750, et seq.

Counsel Amelia Courtney Hritz, applies for admission to practice before this Court pro hac vice, in order to represent Defendant, The Purple Mixer, Inc. d/b/a Miss Jones Baking Co.

Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To be admitted pro hac vice, one must be “a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States.” California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(a). However, in no case shall an attorney appear pro hac vice if the attorney is a resident of California, regularly employed in California, or “regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.” Ibid.

An attorney seeking pro hac vice admission must file a verified application in both court and the State Bar of California establishing

(1) [t]he applicant's residence and office address; (2)[t]he courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3)[t]hat the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4)[t]hat the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5)[t]he title of 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)[t]he name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record. (California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(d). )

Lastly, repeated applications for pro hac vice appearance may result in denial. California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(b).

Here, Counsel Hritz has complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. Counsel Hritz is not a resident of California and is admitted to practice in New York. (Hritz Decl. ¶¶ 1-4.) Counsel Hritz is a member in good standing in the State of New York, South Carolina, and United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. (Id. at ¶¶ 4-6.) Counsel has not been suspended or disbarred in any court. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Moreover, Counsel states that she filed a pro hac vice application on June 17, 2024, to appear pro hac vice once before a court in the State of California regarding Stockbridge Treasure Island Investment Company, LLC v. Kenwood Investments, LLC, No. CGC23 23-605626, Superior Court of San Francisco but the decision is currently pending. (Id. at ¶ 8.) She also provided the name, address, and telephone number of Matthew Borden, Esq. (SBN: 214323) and David H. Kwasniewski, Esq. (281985) who are counsel of record on behalf of Defendant Miss Jones. (Id. at ¶ 9.)

Therefore, the Court GRANTS Counsel’s motion to appear as counsel pro hac vice.