Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV17117, Date: 2024-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV17117    Hearing Date: November 14, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTIES: Defendants TELUS INTERNATIONAL (CDA) INC.; TELUS INTERNATIONAL (U.S.) CORP.; TELUS INTERNATIONAL AI ACQUISITION, INC.; TELUS INTERNATIONAL HOLDINGS (U.S.A.) CORP.; TELUS INTERNATIONAL AI INC.; TELUS INTERNATIONAL SERVICES LTD. (collectively, “Defendants”)

BACKGROUND

             On July 10, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint asserting the following causes of action: (1) Declaratory Judgment and Injunctive Relief Under California Code of Civil Procedure § 1060 et seq.; (2) Violation of California Labor code § 925; (3) Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 16600 et seq.; and (4) Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200.

On September 10, 2024, Defendants filed two respective applications to permit Katherine E. Perrelli (“Perrelli”) and Dallin R. Wilson (“Wilson”) to appear pro hac vice as counsel, along with local counsel, Jesse L. Miller, in this action (the “Applications”).

 The Court has considered the Applications.  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 though Defendants have complied with most of the requirements, Defendants failed to submit proof that the $50.00 fees were paid for each application.  Additionally, the Applications do not state that Perrelli and Wilson do not perform regular or substantial business, professional or other activities in the State.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)

For the above reasons, the Court, DENIES the Applications, and each of them, without prejudice.

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 14th day of November 2024