Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV20746, Date: 2022-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV20746    Hearing Date: October 18, 2022    Dept: 55

KOMBERT-ROSENBLATT v. HIDDEN PPF, LLC                               22STCV20746

Hearing Date:  10/18/22,  Dept. 55

Add-on:  VERIFIED APPLICATION OF ELIZABETH AUSTERMUEHLE TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR DEFENDANTS HIDDEN PPF LLC AND COREY HESTER.

Notice:  Okay

No Opposition

MP:  Defendants

RP:  

Summary

On 6/24/22, Plaintiff BRANDON KOMBERT-ROSENBLATT filed a Complaint alleging a controlling owner’s decision to unlawfully expel Plaintiff as a minority owner in Defendant HIDDEN PPF, LLC, and to strip Plaintiff’s vested 15% equity membership interest in a multimillion-dollar company, plus defendants terminated Plaintiff’s employment without cause and without paying Plaintiff compensation due.

The causes of action are:

1. BREACH OF CONTRACT;

2. BREACH OF THE IMPLIED COVENANT OF GOOD FAITH AND FAIR DEALING;

3. CONVERSION;

4. BREACH OF FIDUCIARY DUTY;

5. VIOLATIONS OF BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200;

6. ACCOUNTING;

7. DECLARATORY RELIEF;

8. BREACH OF CONTRACT.

MP Positions

Elizabeth Austermuehle applies to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants, on grounds including the following:

·         Counsel is a member of good standing of the Bar of the State of Illinois.

·         Counsel has never been suspended or disbarred by any court.

·         Counsel is not a resident of California, not regularly employed in California, and not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities.

·         Counsel previously applied to appear in two related California cases, and two federal District Court cases.

·         Counsel paid the State Bar fee.

Tentative Ruling

The application is granted.

 The Court finds that it sufficiently complies with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40, including the applicant’s declaration addressing the rule elements. 

Additionally, no reason appears to deny the application, including because of the absence of any opposition.

A judge’s determination of whether to grant an application to appear pro hac vice is evaluated under the abuse-of-discretion standard. Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, 711; United States Golf Ass'n v. Arroyo Software Corp. (1999) 69 Cal. App. 4th 607, 624;  Magee v. Sup. Ct. (1973) 8 Cal.3d 949, 953-54.  There is no statement of the limit of court discretion in ruling on applications to appear pro hac vice in civil cases.  Sheller v. Sup. Ct. (2008) 158 Cal.App.4th 1697, 1713.

Here, counsel reports previously appearing in two California related cases.  This case would be the third, such that similar applications theoretically could be denied sometime in the future, but that is not before this Court at this time.  So, taking the California Bar exam may become advisable.  Repeated appearances by out-of-state counsel in California cases is a basis to deny the application.  Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Sup. Ct. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706.   However, California laws do not regulate lawyer appearances before federal courts.  Birbrower v. Sup. Ct. (1998) 17 Cal. 4th 119, 130. 

*IF PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 8:30 A.M.