Judge: Malcolm Mackey, Case: 22STCV29166, Date: 2023-04-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29166    Hearing Date: April 13, 2023    Dept: 55

AMELL v. STAVOLA                                                         22STCV29166

Hearing Date:  4/13/23,  Dept. 55

#3:   APPLICATION FOR THE  ADMISSION OF JOHN S. VISHNESKI III TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE.

 

Notice:  Okay.

No Opposition.

 

MP:  Defendant RESCUES ROCK, INC.

RP:  

 

 

Summary

 

On 9/7/22, plaintiffs CASSANDRA AMELL et al. filed a Complaint.

On 1/11/23, plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint, alleging that their neighbor defendants own and operate a large animal kennel operation on residential property, in violation of zoning and permit laws, causing odors, noise and disease risks, and making unlivable plaintiffs’ residence located at  8743 Wonderland Park Avenue, Los Angeles.

The causes of action are:

(1) PRIVATE NUISANCE [CIVIL CODE §§ 3479, 3481];

(2) PUBLIC NUISANCE [CIVIL CODE §§ 3480, 3483];

(3) INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;

(4) DECLARATORY RELIEF;

(5) TRESPASS; and

(6) NEGLIGENCE.

 

MP Positions

 

Applicant requests to be admitted pro hac vice for defendants, on grounds including the following:

 

·         Applicant’s address is in Chicago.

·         Applicant has never been suspended, disbarred, or resigned from the practice of law in any jurisdiction.

·         Applicant has been admitted to appear pro hac vice in two California cases in 2020 and 2022.

·         The State Bar fee has been paid.

 

 

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.

*IF PARTIES WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT ON THE COURT’S TENTATIVE RULING, PLEASE CALL THE COURTROOM AT 213-633-0655*