Department 30, Spring Street Courthouse

December 30, 2022

20STCV01341

Motions to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Carlos E. Moore and Pride J. Doran

The motions are continued to enable both attorneys to correct the issues set forth below.

The parties are ordered to appear on the hearing date in order to set a continued hearing date.

Corrected documents must be filed at least five court days in advance of the continued hearing date.

Moving party to provide notice. 

This is an action for negligence arising from a vehicle collision which took place in February 2018. Plaintiff Chastity Miller filed her Complaint against Defendants NDL Transport, Inc., Direct Access Transport, Inc., and Fidel Montiel on January 10, 2020. 

On August 15, 2022, Carlos E. Moore and Pride J. Doran, attorneys for Plaintiff, filed the instant motions to be admitted pro hac vice

Carlos E. Moore and Pride J. Doran seek to be admitted pro hac vice for Plaintiff Chastity Miller. 

None.

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).)

Applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice must contain the facts specified in Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d). Moore and Doran’s applications consist of declarations containing the following information: 

(1) office address (Caption page of both motions)

(2) the courts to which they were admitted (Doran Decl., ¶3; Moore Decl., ¶3.)

(3) evidence that they are members in good standing in other states (Doran Decl., ¶3; Moore Decl., ¶3.)

(4) statements that they are not suspended or disbarred in any state (Doran Decl., ¶5; Moore Decl., ¶5.)

(5) title of this court and the cause of action he has applied to appear in (Caption page of both motions)

(6) evidence that he has not appeared as counsel pro hac vice in California in the past two years (Doran Decl., ¶6; Moore Decl., ¶6.)

(7) The name, address, and phone number of the California attorney of record in the local action. (Doran Decl., ¶1; Moore Decl., ¶1.)

Moore and Doran are not residents of California, nor are they employed or regularly engaging in business in California. They have not appeared as counsel pro hac vice in California in the past two years. However, both counsel failed to file proof of service by mail showing that the applications were properly served on the California State Bar and that Plaintiff paid the $50 fee. 

Although Moore provides both his residence and office address, Doran only provides his office address. Doran must provide his residence address.

Counsels’ motions to appear pro hac vice are CONTINUED to allow Counsel to correct the deficiencies identified above.