Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV26833, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV26833 Hearing Date: March 13, 2025 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
On July 21, 2021, Plaintiffs Daniel Balyan and Elisa Balyan, heirs of Karpis Balian, deceased, filed this action against Defendants Bird Rides, Inc., dba Bird (“Bird”), Julio Vincent Gambuto, and Does 1-100 for motor vehicle tort (scooter) and general negligence.
On August 11, 2023, Plaintiffs amended the complaint to include Defendants Xiaomi USA, Inc. as Doe 1 and Segway, Inc. (“Segway”) as Doe 2.
Also on August 11, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a new complaint against Defendants Bird Rides, Inc., dba Bird, Julio Vincent Gambuto, and Does 1-100 for strict products liability, negligence—product liability, negligence per se, gross negligence, breach of implied warranty of fitness for a particular and/or intended purpose, breach of implied warranty of merchantability, and wrong death/survival by Plaintiffs.
On September 7, 2023, the Court dismissed Defendant Julio Vincent Gambuto with prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On September 23, 2023, Defendant Xiaomi USA, LLC, erroneously sued as Xiaomi USA, Inc. (“Xiaomi”), filed an answer. On November 6, 2023, Segway filed an answer. On November 20, 2023, Bird filed an answer.
On January 10, 2024, Bird filed a suggestion of bankruptcy. On September 18, 2024, Bird filed a notice of stay of proceedings. On November 20, 2024, Bird filed a Notice of Permanent Channeling Injunction, Bar Order and Stay of Tort Litigation.
On November 27, 2024, the Court dismissed Xiaomi without prejudice at Plaintiffs’ request.
On February 11, 2025, Segway filed an application for pro hac vice admission of Charles L. Sutter to represent Segway. The application was set for hearing on March 13, 2025.
Trial is currently set for September 16, 2025.
PARTY’S REQUEST
Segway asks the Court to admit Charles L. Sutter pro hac vice.
LEGAL STANDARD
“A person who is not a licensee of the State Bar of California but who is an attorney in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state, may in the discretion of such court be permitted upon written application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, provided that an active licensee of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record. No person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule if the person is:
“(1) A resident of the State of California;
“(2) Regularly employed in the State of California; or
“(3) Regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)
“Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(b).)
“A person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. The notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)
“The application must state:
“(1) The applicant's residence and office address;
“(2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission;
“(3) That the applicant is a licensee 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 licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.”
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)
The applicant must also pay a fee to the State Bar. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e).)
DISCUSSION
Segway’s application for pro hac vice admission of Charles L. Sutter satisfies the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40. The Court grants the application.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Defendant Segway, Inc.’s application for pro hac vice admission of Charles L. Sutter.
Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.