Judge: Lynette Gridiron Winston, Case: 22PSCV02862, Date: 2025-05-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22PSCV02862 Hearing Date: May 28, 2025 Dept: 6
CASE NAME: Lightking America Technology (L.A.) LTD. v. Arbor CPA, APC, et al.
Plaintiffs’ Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice of James J. Berdelle, Esq.
TENTATIVE RULING
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ application for James J. Berdelle, Esq. to appear pro hac vice.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.
BACKGROUND
This is a breach of contract action. On December 13, 2022, plaintiff Lightking America Technology (LA), LTD filed this action against defendants Arbor CPA, APC, Hui Heidi Liu, CPA, (collectively, Defendants) and Does 1 through 50. On May 9, 2023, Lightking America Technology (L.A.) LTD. and Lightking American (L.A.), LTD. (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed the operative First Amended Complaint against Defendants, alleging causes of action for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty.
On April 30, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an application to appear pro hac vice. On May 16, 2025, Plaintiffs filed an amended declaration in support of the application. The application is unopposed.
LEGAL STANDARD
Any attorney licensed to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending a court of this State, but who is not a licensee of the California State Bar may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State by submitting his written application and mailing notice to all interested parties, as well as notice and a $50.00 application fee to the State Bar Association in San Francisco.¿ (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subds. (a), (c), (e).)¿ An applicant may not reside or work in California, and may not perform regular or substantial business, professional, or other activities here. (Id., rule 9.40, subd. (a).)
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs submitted the verified application of attorney James J. Berdelle, Esq. (Berdelle) to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for them. Berdelle is admitted to practice in the state of Illinois and in four federal district courts, two of which are in Illinois, one is in Michigan, and the other is in Missouri. (Berdelle Amended Decl. (5/16/25), ¶ 5.) Berdelle is in good standing with the bar of the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois, and is not suspended or disbarred from any court. (Berdelle Amended Decl. (5/16/25), ¶¶ 4, 6.) Berdelle is not regularly engaged in the practice of law or other business in California. (Berdelle Amended Decl. (5/16/25), ¶ 7.) Berdelle resides in Texas and provided both a residential and office address in Texas. (Berdelle Amended Decl. (5/16/25), ¶ 2.) Berdelle has applied to appear pro hac vice in six other actions in California over the past two years. (Berdelle Amended Decl. (5/16/25), ¶ 9.) The California attorney of record is Anna Demidchik (Demidchik), and Berdelle provided Demidchik’s contact information. (Berdelle Amended Decl. (5/16/25), ¶ 8.) The proofs of service also indicate service by mail on all counsel and on the State Bar of California with the requisite filing fee. (Demidchik Decl. (4/30/25), ¶ 7; Proof of Service (4/30/25); Berdelle Amended Decl. (5/16/25), pp. 4-5 of pdf; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (c)(1).)
Based on the foregoing, the Court GRANTS the application.
However, the Court notes some issues with the proofs of service submitted with the moving papers. First, they state that Demidchik is employed in Los Angeles County, but then indicates her business address is in Newport Beach, which is in Orange County. (See Proof of Service (4/30/25), p. 10 of pdf; Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a, subd. (1); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (c)(1).) Second, the proofs of service only indicate that the documents were deposited at “CITY, STATE,” and do not provide an actual location. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1013a; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (c)(1); Proof of Service (4/30/25), p. 11 of pdf.) Third, the proofs of service contain no language indicating they were executed under penalty of perjury. (Proof of Service (4/30/25), p. 10-11 of pdf; see Code Civ. Proc., §§ 1013a, 2015.5; see also Woods v. Stallworth (1960) 177 Cal.App.2d 517, 520 [unverified proof of service of summons was defective].) These issues need to be corrected going forward. Notwithstanding, the Court still exercises its discretion to grant the application.
CONCLUSION
The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ application for James J. Berdelle, Esq. to appear pro hac vice.
Plaintiffs are ordered to give notice of the Court’s ruling within five calendar days of this order.