Judge: Elaine Lu, Case: 22STCV40467, Date: 2023-04-26 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling,
please email the clerk at SMCdept26@lacourt.org (and “cc” all
other parties in the same email) no later than 7:30 am on
the day of the hearing, and please notify all other parties in advance that you
will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the
subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and
the party you represent in the body of the email. If you submit on the
tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may
nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion, and the Court may
decide not to adopt the tentative ruling.
2.
For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in
advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to
either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its
discretion.
3. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS
EMAIL (SMCdept26@lacourt.org) FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE
RULING. The Court will not read or
respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
4. IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT
PHYSICAL DISTANCING GOING FORWARD AND UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE, THE COURT STRONGLY
ENCOURAGES ALL COUNSEL AND ALL PARTIES TO APPEAR TELEPHONICALLY FOR NON-TRIAL
AND NON-EVIDENTIARY MATTERS. Thus, until further
notice, Department 26 strongly encourages telephonic appearances for motion
hearings that do not require the presentation of live testimony.
Case Number: 22STCV40467 Hearing Date: April 26, 2023 Dept: 26
|
JOHN KLR1-B DOE; JOHN DA2-B DOE;
JOHN JR3-B DOE; JANE EV4-B DOE; JOHN EL5-B DOE; JOHN JM6-B DOE; JOHN PE7-B
DOE; JANE HH8-B DOE; JOHN KR9-B DOE; JOHN CM10-B DOE; and JOHN JC11-B DOE, Plaintiffs, v.
DOE 1, a governmental entity; DOE
2, an individual; DOE 3, an individual; DOE 4, an individual; DOE 5, an
individual; DOE 6, an individual; DOE 7, an individual; DOE 8, an individual;
DOE 9, an individual; DOE 10, an individual; et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: 22STCV40467 Hearing Date: April 26, 2023 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATIONS FOR AN ORDER PERMITTING ANDY
RUBENSTEIN, ESQ AND RACHAL GARCIA ROSAS, ESQ. AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE |
On April 5, 2023, Andy Rubenstein,
Esq. (“Rubenstein”)
and Rachal Garcia Rosas, Esq. (“Rosas”) have each applied to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiffs. The applications are unopposed.
Under California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40,
attorneys licensed and in good standing in other states may, upon the
California court’s approval, appear as counsel pro hac vice in a pending case if an active member of the state bar
is associated as attorney of record. (CRC
9.40(a).)
Rubenstein
is an active
member, in good standing, of the State Bar of Texas, the
United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, the United
States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the United States
District Court for the Northern District of Texas, the United States District
Court for the Western District of Texas, and the United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit. (Rubenstein
Decl. ¶¶ 4-6.)
In addition, Rubenstein states that he is not a resident of California nor
regularly engaged in business in California.
Rubenstein is a resident of Houston, Texas with an office in Houston,
Texas. (Rubenstein Decl. ¶¶ 1, 2.)
Rubenstein states that states that within the last two years, he has applied
for pro hac vice admission in California in:
A.
22STCV29220 – Jane Doe 1, et al.
v. Iglesia Del Dios Vivo Columna Y Apoyo De La Verdad, et al.
Submitted on January 6, 2023 and Granted February 7, 2023
B.
22STCV40512 – Jane Doe 6, et al. v. Doe
Church, et. al.
Submitted on February 28, 2023 and Granted March 28, 2023
C.
Relating to Lead Case: 19STCV04543 –
John Doe 1, et al. v. Dennis A. Kelly, M.D., et al.; 19STCV13881 – John Doe 1, et al. v.
Dennis A. Kelly, M.D., et al.; 20STCV49504
– John Doe 1, et al v. Dennis A. Kelly, M.D., et al.
Submitted on May 25, 2021 and granted on June 21, 2021
D.
22STCV40418 – John VB1-A Doe, et
al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.
Submitted on March 6, 2023 and currently pending.
Thus,
Rubenstein satisfies the eligibility requirements of CRC 9.40(a).
Rubenstein’s application successfully addresses all six
content requirements outlined in CRC 9.40(d).
Specifically, Rubenstein provides
in his application: (1) his residence and office address (Rubenstein
Decl. ¶ 1); (2) the courts to which Rubenstein has been admitted to practice and the
dates of admission (Rubenstein Decl. ¶ 4); (3) that Rubenstein is a member in
good standing in those courts (Rubenstein Decl. ¶ 5); (4) that he is not
currently suspended or disbarred in any court (Rubenstein Decl. ¶ 6); (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, and whether or not it was granted if any (Rubenstein Decl.
¶ 7); and (6) the name, address, and telephone number of an active member, Thomas
A. Cifarelli of the State Bar of California who is the current counsel of
record for Plaintiffs. (Rubenstein
Decl. ¶ 8).
Furthermore, Rubenstein demonstrates that he has met the requirement of CRC 9.40(c)(1). That rule
provides: “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 . . . of a copy of the
application and of the notice on all parties who have appeared in the cause and
on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office.” (See Cifarelli Decl. ¶ 3.)
Rosas is an active member, in good standing, of the State Bar of Texas,
the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, and the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. (Rosas Decl. ¶ 4-6.)
In addition, Rosas states that she is not a resident of California or
regularly engaged in business in California and is a resident of resident of
Houston, Texas with an office in Houston, Texas. (Rosas Decl. ¶¶ 1-2.) Rosas states that, within the last two years,
she has applied to be admitted pro hac vice in California in 22STCV40418 – John
VB1-A Doe, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al. which she submitted on
March 6, 2023 and is still pending.
(Rosas Decl. ¶ 7.) Thus, Rosas satisfies
the eligibility requirements of CRC 9.40(a).
Rosas’s application successfully addresses all six
content requirements outlined in CRC 9.40(d).
Specifically, Rosas provides
in her application: (1) her residence and office address (Rosas
Decl. ¶ 1); (2) the courts to which Rosas has been admitted to practice and the dates
of admission (Rosas Decl. ¶ 4); (3) that Rosas is a member in good standing in
those courts (Rosas Decl. ¶ 5); (4) that she is not currently suspended or
disbarred in any court (Rosas Decl. ¶ 6); (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, and whether or not
it was granted if any (Rosas Decl. ¶ 7); and (6) the name, address, and
telephone number of an active member, Thomas A. Cifarelli of the State Bar of
California who is the current counsel of record for Plaintiffs. (Rosas Decl.
¶ 8).
Furthermore, Rosas demonstrates that she has met the requirement of CRC 9.40(c)(1). That rule
provides: “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 . . . of a copy of the
application and of the notice on all parties who have appeared in the cause and
on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office.” (See Cifarelli Decl. ¶ 3.)
CONCLUSION AND ORDER
The applications of Andy
Rubenstein, Esq. and Rachal Garcia Rosas, Esq. to
appear as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiffs
are GRANTED.
Moving
Parties are to
give notice and file proof of service of such.
DATED: April 26, 2023 ___________________________
Elaine Lu
Judge of the Superior Court