Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 22STCV38729, Date: 2024-11-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV38729    Hearing Date: November 13, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS.

______________________________________

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants DAL-TILE DISTRIBUTION, LLC, formerly known as DAL-TILE DISTRIBUTION, INC.; DAL-TILE, LLC; DAL-TILE INTERNATIONAL, INC.; and MOHAWK INDUSTRIES, INC. (collectively, “Defendants”)

BACKGROUND

            This is an action for toxic injuries – personal injury and loss of consortium.  The operative third amended complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) negligence; (2) products liability – failure to warn; (3) products liability – design defect; (4) fraudulent concealment; (5) breach of implied warranties; and (6) loss of consortium.

On October 14, 2024, Defendants filed the instant Motion for an Order Admitting Dennis E. Vega to Appear Pro Hac Vice (the “Motion”), seeking an order admitting attorney Dennis E. Vega to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendants in association with their counsel of record, Foley & Mansfield, PLLP, pursuant to Rule 9.40 of the California Rules of Court.

The Court has considered the Motion.  No opposition papers were filed.  Any opposition papers were required to have been filed and served at least nine court days prior to the hearing under California Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b).

DISCUSSION

California Rules of Court (“CRC”) rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State by way of written application upon due notice to all interested parties, as well as service on the State Bar in San Francisco with payment of a $50 fee, provided that the attorney (a) is not a California resident, (b) does not work in California, and (c) does not perform regular or substantial business, professional or other activities in California.

An application for pro hac vice admission must set forth: (1) the applicant attorney’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant attorney has been admitted and dates of admission; (3) a representation that the attorney applicant is a member in good standing in the courts of admission and is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (4) the title of each court and action in which the applicant attorney has appeared pro hac vice in this State in the prior two years; and (5) the name, address and phone number of the active California State Bar member with whom the applicant is associated.  (CRC, rule 9.40(d).)

The Court finds that Defendants have satisfied the requirements for allowing attorney Dennis E. Vega to appear as counsel pro hac vice pursuant to CRC, rule 9.40.

The Court, therefore, GRANTS the Motion.

Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.      

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMC_DEPT56@lacourt.org as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  If the department does not receive an email and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion will be placed off calendar.

Dated this 13th day of November 2024