Department 58

Hearing Date: September 24, 2024

Case Name: Monica Sanchez v. Recharge Inc. et al

Case No.: 24STCV14635

Motion: Pro Hac Vice

Moving Party: Todd C. Kinney

Responding Party: None

Tentative Ruling: GRANT Counsel Todd C. Kinney’s Motion for Pro Hac Vice

On June 12, 2024, Plaintiff Monica Sanchez the complaint against Defendant Recharge Inc. d/b/a www.getrecharge.com alleging a violation of California Invasion of Privacy Act.

Counsel Todd C. Kinney applies for admission to practice before this Court pro hac vice, in order to represent Defendant Recharge Inc. d/b/a www.getrecharge.com.

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 Kinney has complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. Counsel Kinney is not a resident of California and is admitted to practice in Nebraska. (Kinney Decl. ¶¶ 2-5.) Counsel Kinney is a member in good standing in the State of Nebraska, and United States District Court for the District of Nebraska and United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. (Id. at ¶¶ 5-6.) Counsel has not been suspended or disbarred in any court. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Moreover, Counsel states that within the last two (2) years of the date of this Application, he has not filed any applications to appear as pro hac vice counsel or as out-of-state arbitration counsel in California. (Id. at ¶ 8.) Counsel also states that he was admitted as pro hac vice in 2021 for Waterlogic America, LLC v. Michael Rees, David Devlin, Lori McCormack and Vazza Beverage Systems, LLC, et al in Superior Court of California, County of San Bernardino Case No. CIVDS2022098. (Id. at ¶ 5.) He also provided the name, address, and telephone number of Bradley P. Boyer, Esq. (SBN: 179430) who are counsel of record. (Id. at ¶ 9.) Bradley Boyer also attached the proof of service and payment to the State Bar of California. (Boyer Decl. ¶ 3; Ex. A.) Thus, Counsel has complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.

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