Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 22STCV01768, Date: 2024-07-29 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: SMCDept71@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. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the  matter off calendar.
                          
            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: 22STCV01768    Hearing Date: July 29, 2024    Dept: 71

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

DEPARTMENT 71

 

TENTATIVE RULING

 

HEALTHCARE MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATES, INC., et al., 

 

         vs.

 

R.O.A.R. MANAGEMENT COMPANY, INC., et al.

 Case No.:  22STCV10768

 

 

 

 

 Hearing Date:  July 29, 2024

 

Moving Defendants Ari Resnik’s, R.O.A.R. Management Company, Inc.’s, and 11 Funding, LLC’s unopposed application for an order admitting B. Gammon Fain to appear pro hac vice is denied without prejudice.

Moving Defendants Ari Resnik’s, R.O.A.R. Management Company, Inc.’s, and 11 Funding, LLC’s unopposed application for an order admitting Charles Gilliam-Brownlee to appear pro hac vice is denied without prejudice.

 

          Defendants Ari Resnik (“Resnik”), R.O.A.R. Management Company, Inc. (“ROAR”), and Defendant 11 Funding, LLC (“11 Funding”) (collectively, “Moving Defendants”) apply unopposed to permit B. Gammon Fain (“Fain”) to appear pro hac vice on their behalf.  (Notice Pro Hac Vice Fain, pg. 3; CRC, Rule 9.40.)

Moving Defendants apply unopposed to permit Eugene Zilberman (“Zilberman”) to appear pro hac vice on their behalf.  (Notice Pro Hac Vice Zilberman, pg. 3; CRC, Rule 9.40.)

 

          Background

On March 6, 2024, Moving Defendants filed the instant applications for Kain and Zilberman to be admitted pro hac vice.  As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

 

Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

C.R.C., Rule 9.40(d) provides that an application to be admitted pro hac vice must state the following:

(1)   The applicant’s residence and office address;

(2)   The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission;

(3)   That the applicant is a licensee 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 licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.

C.R.C., Rule 9.40(e) provides as follows, “[a]n applicant for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule must pay a reasonable fee not exceeding $50 to the State Bar of California with the copy of the application and the notice of hearing that is served on the State Bar.”

 

1.     Fain’s Application

Moving Defendants’ application on behalf of Fain provides the information required by C.R.C., Rule 9.40(d).  Moving Defendants submitted proof that the $50.00 fee was paid to the State Bar of California.  (C.R.C., Rule 9.40(e); Decl. of Ram ¶4, Exh. 1.)  Moving Defendants’ proof of service on the application indicates that the State Bar of California was provided notice of the hearing of this application.  (C.R.C., Rule 9.40(c)(1); Decl. of Ram ¶4; see POS Fain.)

However, Moving Defendants have not provided this Court with Fain’s bar numbers in Kentucky and the District of Columbia. While this requirement is not enumerated in C.R.C., Rule 9.40, the Court needs this number to enter Fain’s application into the Court’s system.

Accordingly, Moving Defendants’ unopposed motion for an order admitting Fain to appear pro hac vice is denied, without prejudice.

Moving Party to give notice.

 

2.     Zilberman’s Application

Moving Defendants’ application on behalf of Zilberman provides the information required by C.R.C., Rule 9.40(d).  Moving Defendants submitted proof that the $50.00 fee was paid to the State Bar of California.  (C.R.C., Rule 9.40(e); Decl. of Ram ¶4, Exh. 1.)  Moving Defendants’ proof of service on the application indicates that the State Bar of California was provided notice of the hearing of this application.  (C.R.C., Rule 9.40(c)(1); Decl. of Ram ¶4; see POS Zilberman.)

However, Moving Defendants have not provided this Court with Zilberman’s bar numbers in Texas and New York. While this requirement is not enumerated in C.R.C., Rule 9.40, the Court needs this number to enter Zilberman’s application into the Court’s system.Accordingly, Moving Defendants’ unopposed motion for an order admitting Zilberman to appear pro hac vice is denied without prejudice.


NOTE:  The Court wiil grant these motions if counsel provide their bar #s at the hearing.  

Moving Party to give notice.

 

 

Dated:  July _____, 2024

                                                                            

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court