Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV11623, Date: 2022-09-28 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV11623    Hearing Date: September 28, 2022    Dept: 28

Defendant Erik Cabral’s Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Paul D. Motz

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. 

BACKGROUND

On March 23, 2020, Plaintiff Saige Madison Harary (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Interscope Records, a division of UMG Recordings, Inc. (“IR”), Lathan Moses Echols (“Echols”) and Erik Cabral (“Cabral”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence. Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Hidden Pictures, LLC (“HP”), Mogul Vision, LLC (“MV”), Mogul Vision Music, LLC (“MVM”), Sara Shiri Fauer (“Fauer”), Lil Mosey, LLC (“Lil Mosey”), Joshua Marshall (“Marshall”), UMG Recordings, Inc. (“UMG”) and Lil Mosey IP Holdings, LLC (“IP Holdings”).

On May 13, 2020, IR and Cabral filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Roes 1-100 for indemnity, contribution, apportionment of fault, breach of contract regarding duty to defend, breach of contract regarding duty to indemnify and declaratory relief.

On December 16, 2020, the clerk entered default against Echols.

On May 24, 2021, UMG filed an answer.

On June 1, 2021, MV, MVM, Lil Mosey, IP Holdings and Marshall filed an answer.

On July 21, 2021, HP and Fauer filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint against Roes 101-200 for indemnity, contribution and apportionment of fault.

On September 1, 2022, Cabral filed an application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Erica J. Bury, to be heard on September 28, 2022.

Trial is currently set for October 19, 2022.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

Cabral request the Court admit Paul D. Motz, pro hac vice.

LEGAL STANDARD

California Rule of Court, rule 9.40 provides that 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, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.

The application must state: (1) the applicant’s residence and office addresses; (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, subd. (d).)

DISCUSSION

Motz is in good standing in Illinois and will be associated with California attorney Joseph L. Kish. He is not regularly employed in California and does not regularly engage in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.

Motz filed an application to be admitted Pro Hac Vice, which included the following information: Motz’s residential and office address, the courts that Motz is admitted to (along with dates of admissions), assurance he is in good standing, a record of all California pro hac vice appearances in the last two years, and information on the local attorney of record. Cabral submitted proof of service on all parties, including the California State Bar.

Kish also attached proof of payment to the California State Bar. As such, Cabral has satisfied all requirements. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Erik Cabral’s Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Paul D. Motz is GRANTED.

            Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.