Judge: Cherol J. Nellon, Case: 23STCV30103, Date: 2025-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30103    Hearing Date: January 13, 2025    Dept: 14

#5

Case Background

Plaintiff alleges that his talent agents worked against his best interests in the compensation negotiations for Plaintiff’s appearance on the hit television show “Empire.”

On December 8, 2023, Plaintiff filed his Complaint for (1) Breach of Fiduciary Duty, (2) Constructive Fraud, and (3) Fraudulent Concealment against Defendants Creative Artists Agency, LLC (“Creative Artists”), David Bugliari, Jon Teiber, Michael Katcher, and DOES 1-10.

On August 15, 2024, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint (SAC).

On October 25, 2024, Plaintiff filed this application for Carlose E. Moore to be admitted pro hac vice.

On November 8, 2024, Plaintiff dismissed Defendants David Bugliari, Jon Teiber, and Michael Katcher from this action.

Instant Pleading

Carlose E. Moore applies for permission to appear pro hac vice on behalf of Plaintiff.

Decision

The application is GRANTED. Counsel Moore has complied with California Rules of Court Rule 9.40.

Discussion

Moore attests to his residence address and his office address, which are both in Mississippi. (Moore Decl., ¶1.) He attests to all the courts he has been admitted to (with dates of admission) and that he is in good standing with the State Bars of Mississippi and Tennessee and not currently suspended or disbarred from practice in any court. (Id. at ¶¶ 3-5.) Moore submits the name and address of the active California State Bar member with whom he is associated. (Id. at ¶7.) He also attests to the title of each court and action in which he has appeared pro hac vice in California in the preceding two years. (Id. at ¶ 6.) Further, the requisite fee was sent to the State Bar of California, and the Notice of Hearing and the instant application were served on all interested parties and on the State Bar of California. (Application, Exh. 1; POS.)

Conclusion

The application is GRANTED. Counsel Moore has complied with California Rules of Court Rule 9.40.