Judge: Helen Zukin, Case: 22SMCV001120, Date: 2023-01-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV001120    Hearing Date: January 31, 2023    Dept: 207

Background

Plaintiff Blank Rome LLP (“Plaintiff”) brings this action against Defendant The Santa Barbara Smokehouse, Inc. (“Smokehouse”) to collect on outstanding legal fees allegedly owed by Smokehouse. Smokehouse, together with DHBrands Limited (“DHBrands”), have filed a Cross-Complaint against Plaintiff for legal malpractice, breach of contract, and breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff filed its own Cross-Complaint against DHBrands to collect on unpaid fees stemming from Plaintiff’s representation of DHBrands in prior litigation.

Plaintiff brings this application for Natasha Romagnoli to appear as its counsel pro hac vice. This application is unopposed.

Pro Hac Vice 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, subd. (d).)

Analysis

The Court finds the application satisfies the requirements of California Rule of Court, rule 9.40(d). However, under rule 9.40(c)(1), a pro hac vice application must be filed “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 . . . the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office.” The proof of service filed with this application shows electronic service on counsel to the other parties in this litigation but does not show service by mail on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. The declaration of Gregory Bordo states “A copy of this Application has been served upon the State Bar of California” but does not indicate whether this service was effectuated by mail under Code Civ. Proc. § 1013a as required by California Rule of Court, rule 9.40(d). (Bordo Decl. at ¶5.) The Court will continue the hearing on the application to allow for service by mail on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c).

Conclusion

The hearing on Natasha Romagnoli’s application to appear pro hac vice is continued to February 14, 2023. At least five (5) court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff must file a proof of service demonstrating the application was served by mail on the State Bar of California in accordance with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (c).