Judge: Kerry Bensinger, Case: 21STCV03536, Date: 2023-10-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV03536    Hearing Date: October 4, 2023    Dept: 27

Tentative Ruling

 

Judge Kerry Bensinger, Department 27

 

 

HEARING DATE:     October 4, 2023                                 TRIAL DATE:  December 8, 2023

                                                          

CASE:                         Mojgan Lavi v. Bloomingdale’s, LLC, et al.

 

CASE NO.:                      21STCV03536

 

 

APPLICATIONS TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE

 

MOVING PARTY:                   Defendants Schindler Elevator Corporation and Bloomingdale’s, LLC

 

RESPONDING PARTY:     No opposition

 

 

I.          BACKGROUND

 

            On August 9 and August 16, 2023, Defendants, Schindler Elevator Corporation and Bloomingdale’s LLC, filed these applications for admission of Kevin C. Schiferl and Blake N. Shelby, to appear as counsel pro hac vice. 

 

            The applications are unopposed.

                    

II.        LEGAL STANDARD

 

            California Rules of Court 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.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.) 

 

            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 of 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).) 

 

III.      DISCUSSION

 

            Kevin C. Schiferl and Blake N. Shelby seek a court order allowing them to appear as counsel pro hac vice to represent Defendants in this action. 

 

            The applications comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40.  Accordingly, the applications are GRANTED.

 

IV.       CONCLUSION 

 

            The unopposed applications are granted.  It is ordered that Kevin C. Schiferl and Blake N. Shelby be admitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice for the purpose of representing Defendants in this action.  Applicants shall be subject to all applicable rules of this Court.

 

            Moving party to give notice. 

 

 

Dated:   October 4, 2023                                           ___________________________________

                                                                                    Kerry Bensinger

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

 

            Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue.  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.