Judge Holly J. Fujie, Case Number: 24STCV14230, Date: 2024-11-22 Tentative Ruling

The Court has considered the moving papers. No opposition or reply papers were filed as of November 19, 2024.

On June 6, 2024, Miguel Blanco-Torres and David Martinez Ruiz on behalf of all other Aggrieved Employees filed their Complaint for enforcement under the Private Attorneys General Act against B & I Logistics, LLC, DCN Processing Services LLC, and OnTrac Logistics, Inc.

On October 18, 2024, attorneys Janis E. Steck and Charles Andrewscavage filed their applications to be admitted pro hac vice for OnTrac Logistics, Inc. As of November 19, 2024, both applications are unopposed.

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).)

Under CRC, Rule 9.40(b), “[a]bsent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.”

Here, Ms. Steck attests to her Indiana residence and office address, and Mr. Andrewscavage attests to his Illinois residence and office address. (Verified Application of Janis E. Steck (“Steck App.”), ¶¶ 2-3; Verified Application of Charles Andrewscavage (“Andrewscavage App.”), ¶¶ 2-3.) Both attorneys attest to all the courts they have been admitted to with dates of admission; Mr. Andrewscavage’s petition is missing Exhibit “A,” but it is included with the Declaration of Christopher C. McNatt, Jr. in support. (Steck App., ¶ 4, Ex. “A”; Andrewscavage App., ¶ 4, Ex. “A.”) Both attorneys also attest that they are in good standing in the Bars of such courts and not currently suspended or disbarred from practice in any court; again, Mr. Andrewscavage’s petition is missing Exhibit “B,” but it is included with Mr. McNatt’s declaration. (Steck App., ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. “B”; Andrewscavage App., ¶¶ 4-5, Ex. “B.”)

Both attorneys submit the name and address of the active California State Bar member with whom they are associated: Mr. McNatt of Scopelitis, Garvin, Light, Hanson, & Feary, 2 North Lake Avenue, Pasadena, California. (Steck App., ¶ 1; Andrewscavage App., ¶ 1.) In the preceding two years, Ms. Steck has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in California in a single case. (Steck App., ¶ 7; Ex. “C.”) Mr. McNatt’s declaration provides that Mr. Andrewscavage has filed applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice in California in four cases. (Declaration of Christopher C. McNatt, Jr.; Ex. “C.”) Neither attorney is a resident of California, regularly employed in California, or regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in California. (Steck App., ¶ 10; Andrewscavage App., ¶ 10.) Lastly, both attorneys have paid the requisite fee to the State Bar of California and caused the State Bar of California to be served with a copy of their respective Application, Notice of Hearing, Declaration of Christopher C. McNatt, Jr. and (Proposed) Order. (Steck App., ¶ 8; Andrewscavage App., ¶ 8.)

Based on the foregoing, the Court finds that Ms. Steck and Mr. Andrewscavage satisfy the requirements to appear as counsel pro hac vice pursuant to CRC, Rule 9.40. The Court therefore GRANTS the applications.

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.

Hon. Holly J. Fujie

Judge of the Superior Court