Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV02154, Date: 2024-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24CHCV02154    Hearing Date: October 4, 2024    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

APPLICATION FOR HENRY LEAMAN TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE

Motion filed: 9/11/23

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Paylocity Corp.

RESPONDING PARTY: None

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendant’s Application for Admission of Henry Leaman as counsel Pro Hac Vice

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This is a breach of contract and tort case between a canned beverage manufacturer, Plaintiff DrinkPAK LLC (“Plaintiff” or “DrinkPAK”), and a payroll services provider, Defendant Paylocity Corp. (“Defendant” or “Paylocity”).

On June 11, 2024, Plaintiff filed the Complaint against Defendant and Does 1 through 10, alleging the following causes of action: (1) Breach of Contract, (2) Breach of Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing, (3) Implied Indemnity, (4) Equitable Indemnity, (5) Contribution, and (6) Declaratory Relief. Subsequently, Defendant filed a demurrer with motion to strike to the Complaint on September 9, 2024.

On September 11, 2024, Defendant filed the instant Application for Henry Leaman to be Admitted as Counsel Pro Hac Vice (the “Application”).

No Opposition or Reply papers have been received.

ANALYSIS

Pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 9.40(a), “[a] person who is not a licensee of the State Bar of California but who is an attorney in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state, may in the discretion of such court be permitted upon written application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, provided that an active licensee of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record.”

Additionally, “No person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule if the person is: (1) A resident of the State of California; (2) Regularly employed in the State of California; or (3) Regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.” (Cal. Rules of Court rule 9.40(a).)

A.    Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice

Henry Leaman (“Leaman”) applies to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant Paylocity. This Application is unopposed.

Leaman is a member in good standing of the following: (1) Supreme Court of Illinois, (2) U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois, (3) U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, (4) U.S. Court of Appeal for the Fifth Circuit, (5) U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and (6) U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. (Leaman Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.) In addition, Leaman states that he is not a resident of California, is not regularly engaged in practice of law in the State of California, and is not regularly employed or does a substantial amount of business in the State of California (Id. ¶ 4.) Leaman attests that he has not previously applied for admission pro hac vice into California courts. (Id. ¶ 7.)

Therefore, Leaman satisfies the eligibility requirements of California Rules of Court rule 9.40(a).

Leaman’s Application successfully addresses all six content requirements outlined in California Rules of Court rule 9.40(d). He provides: (1) his residence and office address (Leaman Decl. ¶¶ 2-3); (2) the courts to which he has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission (id. ¶ 5); (3) that he is a member in good standing in those courts (id. ¶ 6); (4) that he is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court or jurisdiction (ibid.); (5) that he has not previously applied for admission pro hac vice into California court (id. ¶ 7); (6) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record for Defendant (id. ¶ 8).

Furthermore, Leaman has satisfied the requirement of California Rules of Court rule 9.40(c)(1) which states, “[a] person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. The notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period.” (Casillas Decl. ¶ 3.) Additionally, Leaman declares that the $50.00 application fee, mandated by California Rules of Court rule 9.40(e), has been remitted to the State Bar of California.

Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the Application.

CONCLUSION

Defendant Paylocity Corp.’s Application for Admission of Henry Leaman as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.