Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 22STCV05634, Date: 2024-02-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV05634 Hearing Date: February 27, 2024 Dept: 28
Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.
BACKGROUND
A. Case number 22STCV05634
On February 15, 2022, Plaintiff New York Marine and General Insurance Company (“Marine”) filed this action against Defendants City of Los Angeles (“City”) and Does 1-25 for general negligence, premises liability, and subrogation under Labor Code section 3850 et seq. and Government Code section 835. (Case number 22STCV05634.)
On April 22, 2022, the City filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants TA/Warner Center Investors, LLC (“Warner Center”), Kaplan Woodland Hills Property Co., LLC c/o Lisa Yancey (“Woodland Hills”), and Roes 1-25 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief.
On June 8, 2022, Marine amended the complaint to include Warner Center as Doe 1 and Woodland Hills as Doe 2.
On July 11, 2022, the Court dismissed Woodland Hills from the City’s cross-complaint without prejudice at the City’s request.
On July 21, 2022, the Court dismissed Woodland Hills from Marine’s complaint without prejudice at Marine’s request.
On August 1, 2022, the Court dismissed the City from the complaint without prejudice at Marine’s request.
On August 9, 2022, the Court dismissed TA/Warner City [sic] Investors, LLC, and Roes 1-25 from the City’s cross-complaint without prejudice at the City’s request.
On March 29, 2023, Marine amended the complaint to include Defendants Blue Cross of California (“Blue Cross”) as Doe 1 and Park Square Partners (“Park Square”) as Doe 2 (even though Marine had previously named other defendants as Doe 1 and Doe 2).
On September 21, 2023, Park Square filed an answer.
B. Case number 22STCV19412
On June 14, 2022, Plaintiff Johana Delis (“Delis”) filed this action against Defendants Warner Center and Does 1-25 for general negligence and premises liability. (Case number 22STCV19412.)
On September 30, 2022, Warner Center Investors, LLC, filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Cross-Defendants City of Los Angeles, Department of General Services, Real Estate Services Division, Park Square, Blue Cross, and Roes 1-100 for implied indemnity, express indemnity, contribution, declaratory relief, and duty to defend.
On December 21, 2022, Delis amended the complaint to include Blue Cross as Doe 1 and Park Square as Doe 2.
On January 27, 2023, the City (erroneously sued and served as City of Los Angeles, Department of General Services, Real Estate Services Division) filed an answer to Warner Center’s cross-complaint. The City also filed a cross-complaint against Roes 1-10 for apportionment of fault, indemnification, and declaratory relief.
Also on January 27, 2023, Blue Cross filed an answer to Delis’s complaint.
On May 16, 2023, Park Square filed an answer to Warner Center’s cross-complaint.
On September 21, 2023, Park Square
filed an answer to Delis’s complaint.
C. The Court relates and consolidates the cases
On July 7, 2022, the Court found that case numbers 22STCV05634 and 22STCV19412 are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300(a). Case number 22STCV05634 became the lead case. The cases were assigned to Department 28 at the Spring Street Courthouse for all purposes.
On October 16, 2023, the Court granted the parties’ stipulated request to consolidate the cases for all purposes.
D. Motion for leave to appear pro hac vice
On November 29, 2023, Blue Cross and Park Square (“Moving Defendants”) filed an application to admit attorney Jennifer H. Chung (“Chung”) pro hac vice to represent them in this case. The motion was set for hearing on January 18, 2024. The Court continued the hearing to February 27, 2024.
PARTIES’ REQUEST
Moving Defendants request that the Court admit Chung 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
Chung is an attorney in good standing in Texas, Colorado, Michigan, New Mexico, Ohio, and Oklahoma and will be associated with California attorney John T. Burnite. She is not regularly employed in California and does not regularly engage in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.
Chung’s application provides her residential and office address, the courts to which she is admitted (along with dates of admissions), assurance that she is in good standing, a record of all California pro hac vice appearances in the last two years, and information on the local attorney of record.
Chung’s application was submitted to the State Bar through its website along with the $50 filing fee.
The Court grants the application.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS the application for pro hac vice admission of Jennifer H. Chung.
Moving parties are ordered to give notice of this ruling.
Moving parties are ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.