Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV20746, Date: 2022-11-07 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV20746 Hearing Date: November 7, 2022 Dept: 55
KOMBERT-ROSENBLATT
v. HIDDEN PPF, LLC 22STCV20746
Hearing Date: 11/7/22,
Dept. 55
4: VERIFIED
APPLICATION OF SHAYNA FREYMAN 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
Shayna Freyman 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 Florida.
·
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 never previously applied to appear
in California 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.