Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 20STCV25568, Date: 2023-02-16 Tentative Ruling
All parties are
urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to
see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter. If
you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in
advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather
than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SSCDEPT28@lacourt.org. Include
the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject
line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the
hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and
whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant,
cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.
Please be
advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the
hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the
matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the
argument. Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in
the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.
If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT
WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line. If you elect to
argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect.
Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent
authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative
ruling as the order of the court.
If you submitted a courtesy copy of
your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request
the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the
hearing of your matter.
Case Number: 20STCV25568 Hearing Date: February 16, 2023 Dept: 28
Cross-Defendant Terminix
International’s Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of David J. Richards
Having
considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On
July 7, 2020, Plaintiff Eric Cottrell (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against
Defendants Jose Castro (“Castro”), Caliber Bodyworks, Inc. (“Bodyworks”) and
RCB Equities South Bay, LLC (“RCB”) for negligence and premises liability.
Plaintiff later amended the complaint to include Defendants Emcor Facilities
Services, Inc. (“Emcor”) and Caliber Holdings, LLC (“Holdings”).
On
September 3, 2020, Bodyworks and Castro filed an answer and a Cross-Complaint
against ROES 1 through 500 for implied contractual indemnity, total indemnity,
equitable indemnity, negligence and contribution.
On
December 2, 2020, RCB filed its answer and a Cross-Complaint against Bodyworks
for equitable indemnity, express indemnity, apportionment of fault, breach of
contract and declaratory relief.
On
November 10, 2021, Plaintiff dismissed Emcor, without prejudice. Holdings filed
its answer on January 28, 2022.
On
April 22, 2022, and on May 10, 2022, Holdings, Bodyworks, Castro and RCB filed
a Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendant Terminix International (“Terminix”)
for express contractual indemnity, equitable indemnity, contribution, breach of
contract, declaratory relief (duty to defend) and declaratory relief (duty to
indemnify). Terminix filed an answer on August 31, 2022.
On
January 18, 2023, Terminix filed an application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of David
J. Richards, to be heard on February 16, 2023.
Trial is currently set for May 10,
2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Terminix
requests the Court admit David J. Richards 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
Richards
is in good standing in Illinois and will be associated with California attorneys
Bradley M. Zamczyk and Joseph V. Diestel. He is not regularly employed in
California and does not regularly engage in substantial business, professional,
or other activities in the State of California.
Richards
filed an application to be admitted Pro Hac Vice, which included the following
information: his residential and office address, the courts that he 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. Terminix submitted proof of
service on all parties.
Diestel submitted a declaration of service
and payment on the California State Bar. This was supplemented with proof of
payment. The Court grants the motion, conditional upon counsel providing proof
of service on the State Bar.
CONCLUSION
Cross-Defendant
Terminix International’s Application
for Pro Hac Vice Admission of David J. Richards is GRANTED, conditional upon
Plaintiff submitting proper proof of service on the California State Bar.
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.