Judge: Jill Feeney, Case: 19STCV17556, Date: 2022-12-30 Tentative Ruling
PLEASE NOTE:
The parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if there is an agreement to submit.
Regardless of whether there is any such agreement, each party who wishes to submit must send an email to the Court at sscdept30@lacourt.org indicating the party's intention to submit.
Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the case number in the subject line of the email and in the body provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, or non-party.
If a party submits but still intends to appear at the hearing, include the words "SUBMITS BUT WILL APPEAR" in the subject line of the email.
If the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.
Unless all the parties have submitted, the Court will hear argument from any party that appears at the hearing and wishes to argue. The Court may change its tentative as a result of the argument and adopt the changed tentative as the final order at the end of that hearing, even if all the parties are not present.
Be advised that after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of said motion and may adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.
Case Number: 19STCV17556 Hearing Date: December 30, 2022 Dept: 30
Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse
December 30, 2022
19STCV17556
Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Defendants Uber Technologies, Rasier, LLC, and Raiser-CA, LLC
DECISION
The motion is granted.
Moving party to provide notice and to file proof of service of such notice within five court days after the date of this order.
This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in August 2018. Plaintiff Sandra Sealy filed her Complaint against Uber Technologies, Rasier, LLC, Rasier-CA, LLC., and Francisco Gonzalez on May 20, 2019.
On December 19, 2022, Defendants Uber Technologies, Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA , LLC (“Uber Defendants”) filed its motion to admit Adrienne F. Busby as Counsel Pro Hac Vice.
Summary
Moving Arguments
Uber Defendants seek a court order permitting Adrienne Busby to appear pro hac vice to represent them in this action.
Opposing Arguments
None filed.
Legal Standard
CRC 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(d).)
Discussion
Applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice must contain the facts specified in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d). Busby’s application contains the following information:
(1) office and residence address (Busby Decl., ¶¶2-3.)
(2) the courts to which he has been admitted (Id., ¶6.)
(3) evidence that she is a member in good standing in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana (Id., ¶7.)
(4) evidence she is not suspended or disbarred in any state (Id., ¶7.)
(5) title of this court and the cause of action he has applied to appear in (Id., Cover Page)
(6) evidence that she has appeared as counsel pro hac vice in California in the past two years for two other matters (Id., ¶8.)
(7) Name, address, and phone number of Tarifa B. Laddon, the California attorney representing the Uber Defendants in this action. (Id., ¶10.)
Busby is not a resident of California, nor is she employed or regularly engaging in business in California. She has appeared as counsel pro hac vice in California for two other matters in the past two years. Busby’s application was properly served on the California State Bar and includes a receipt showing payment of the $50 fee. (Motion, Exh. A; Busby Decl., ¶11; Laddon Decl., ¶4.) The Uber Defendants also properly served all parties who have appeared in the action.
Conclusion
Based on the foregoing, Uber Defendants’ application for Adrienne Busby to appear as counsel pro hac vice is GRANTED.
