Judge: Holly J. Fujie, Case: 24STCV19931, Date: 2024-10-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV19931    Hearing Date: October 3, 2024    Dept: 56

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

MOVING PARTIES: Attorneys Sean Benjamin Solis (“Solis”) and T. Markus Funk (“Funk”)

BACKGROUND

             On August 7, 2024, Plaintiffs filed their complaint asserting the following causes of action: (1) declaratory relief; (2) breach of duty of care; (3)           breach of duty of loyalty; (4) aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty; (5) unjust enrichment; (6) fraud; (7) breach of contract; (8) breach of covenant of good faith and fair dealing; (9) fraudulent transfer; (10) usury; (11) accounting; and (12) constructive trust. 

On August 22, 2024, attorneys Solis and Funk filed their respective applications (the “Applications”) to be admitted pro hac vice to represent Defendants Berlekamp Family Investments LLC, David Berlekamp, Persis Berlekamp and Bronwen O’Wril in this action. 

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 Solis and Funk each have established that they satisfied the requirements to appear as counsel pro hac vice pursuant to CRC, rule 9.40.

The Court, therefore, GRANTS the Applications, and each of them.

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 3rd day of October 2024