Judge: David B. Gelfound, Case: 24CHCV03121, Date: 2025-04-14 Tentative Ruling

Counsel wishing to submit on a tentative ruling may inform the clerk or courtroom assistant in North Valley Department F49, 9425 Penfield Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, at (818) 407-2249.  Please be aware that unless all parties submit, the matter will still be called for hearing and may be argued by any appearing/non-submitting parties. If the matter is submitted on the court's tentative ruling by all parties, counsel for moving party shall give notice of ruling. This may be done by incorporating verbatim the court's tentative ruling. The tentative ruling may be extracted verbatim by copying and pasting, as unformatted text, from the Los Angeles Superior Court’s website, http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org.
All hearings on law and motion and other calendar matters are generally NOT transcribed by a court reporter unless one is provided by the party(ies). 

Case Number: 24CHCV03121    Hearing Date: April 14, 2025    Dept: F49

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT

NORTH VALLEY DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT F49

APPLICATION FOR PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ANTHONY VANICEK

Motion filed: 3/11/25

MOVING PARTY: Defendants Platinum Tow & Transport, Inc. and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

RESPONDING PARTY: None.

NOTICE: OK.

RELIEF REQUESTED: An order granting Defendants’ Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Anthony Vanicek to appear as counsel for Defendants.

TENTATIVE RULING: The motion is GRANTED.

BACKGROUND

This action arises from injuries that Plaintiff sustained on October 20, 2023, as a result of Defendants’ service to change her flat tire on the shoulder of the southbound Interstate 5.

On August 29, 2024, Plaintiff Liliana Bolton (“Plaintiff” or “Bolton”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Platinum Tow & Transport, Inc. (“PT&T”) and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“MTA”) (collectively, “Defendants”) and Does 1 through 100, alleging two causes of action: (1) negligence (against PT&T), and (2) negligence (against MTA). Subsequently, Defendants PT&T and MTA filed their respective Answers to the Complaint on October 2 and November 4, 2024.

On March 11, 2025, Defendants filed the instant Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Anthony Vanicek (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 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 for Pro Hac Vice Admission – Anthony Vanicek

Anthony Vanicek (“Vanicek”) applies to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants.

Vanicek is a member in good standing of the following federal courts: the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. (Vanicek Decl. ¶¶ 8-9.) Vanicek is also in good standing and eligible to practice before the bar of the State of Colorado. (Id. ¶ 3.) In addition, Vanicek attests that he is not a resident of California, is not regularly employed in California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California (Id. ¶ 5.) Vanicek has filed one previous application to appear pro hac vice in California in the past two years, and the application was approved. (Id. ¶ 7.)

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

Furthermore, Vanicek’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 (Vanicek Decl. ¶¶ 5-6); (2) the courts to which he has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission (id. ¶¶ 8-9); (3) that he is a member in good standing in those courts (ibid); (4) that he is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court or jurisdiction (id. ¶ 9); (5) that he has previously applied for admission pro hac vice into California court, which was approved on February 26, 2025 (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 Defendants (id. ¶ 10, Nesbitt Decl. ¶¶ 2-3).

Vanicek’s Application was properly served on the California State Bar and includes a receipt showing that Vanicek paid the required fee. (Vanicek Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. “A.”) Plaintiff was also properly served with the Application.

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Vanicek’s unopposed Application complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Anthony Vanicek to appear as counsel for Defendants.

CONCLUSION

Defendants’ Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Anthony Vanicek to appear as Counsel for Defendants Platinum Tow & Transport, Inc. and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority is GRANTED.

Moving party to give notice.