Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: BC676306, Date: 2022-12-21 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: BC676306 Hearing Date: December 21, 2022 Dept: 28
Pro Hac Vice Application
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows. No opposing papers were filed.
BACKGROUND
On September 19, 2017, Plaintiffs Nicolette Birdsong Wilson and Cedric Lamont Wilson (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint.
On April 12, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint (FAC) against David Wayne Johnson and Combined Transport, Inc. (“Defendants”) alleging eight causes of action. The FAC alleges (1) motor vehicle negligence; (2) general negligence; (3) negligent supervision; (4) negligence per se violation of Title 49 C.F.R. 385.5; (5) negligence per se violation of Title 49 C.F.R. 392.3; (6) negligence per se violation of Title 49 C.F.R. 395.8(k); (7) negligence per se violation of Title 49 C.F.R. 396.11; and (8) loss of consortium. The FAC arises from an alleged motor vehicle collision involving an “oversized” Freightliner (also known as “big rig”) and three vehicles.
On November 14, 2022, Defendants filed an application to admit David L. Ortega as counsel pro hac vice.
Trial is set for January 12, 2023.
PARTY’S REQUESTS
Defendants Combined Transport, Inc. and David Wayne Johnson request for the admission of David L. Ortega to appear as counsel pro hac vice in connection with this proceeding.
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(d).)
DISCUSSION
Defendants submitted David L. Ortega’s verified application together with Declarations of David L. Ortega and Peter Dubrawski. David L. Ortega resides outside of California, in Texas. Defendant’s application is DENIED after finding the following.
The application includes proof of payment of the $50.00 fee under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e). (Dubrawski Decl. ¶ 5; Exh. “A”.) Also, the application includes the required information under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d). (Ortega Decl.) However, the application’s proof of service does not comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1) because it does not show that the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office was served a copy of the application and notice of hearing.
Accordingly, the application is DENIED.
CONCLUSION
Defendants’ application that David L. Ortega be admitted as counsel in this proceeding pro hac vice is DENIED.
Defendants are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Defendants are 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.