Judge Mark C. Kim, Case 21LBCV00582 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark C. Kim, Case: 21LBCV00582, Date: 2022-08-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21LBCV00582 Hearing Date: August 25, 2022 Dept: S27

1. Background Facts

On November 2, 2021, the following licensed acute-care hospitals initiated this action by filing a Complaint against Molina Healthcare, Inc. and Does 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”): Prime Healthcare Services, Paradise Valley Hospital, Centinela Hospital Medical Center, Chino Valley Medical Center, Alvarado Hospital Medical Center, Montclair Hospital Medical Center, Desert Valley Medical Group, Sherman Oaks Hospital, Huntington Beach Hospital, San Dimas Community Hospital, West Anaheim Medical Center, and Garden Grove Hospital Medical Center (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).

On November 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges the following causes of action against Defendants: (1) Breach of Implied-in-Fact Contract, and (2) Quantum Meriuit. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint alleges Defendant Molina Healthcare has underpaid the billed charges accumulated by Defendant’s patients, who received emergency medical care at Plaintiffs’ acute-care hospitals. Plaintiffs bring this action for the purposes of collecting the underpaid billed charges for which Defendant Molina Healthcare has failed to pay, which is equal to a sum of approximately, $2,691,031.98.

On August 16, 2022, S. Derek Bauer, Esq., Kevin D. Bradberry, Esq., and Ian K. Byrnside, Esq. of Baker & Hostetler LLP, each, filed a Verified Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for the purposes of participating in this action as counsel of record for Plaintiffs. The Court now considers the three Verified Applications filed by S. Derek Bauer, Esq., Kevin D. Bradberry, Esq., and Ian K. Byrnside, Esq. of Baker & Hostetler LLP.s

2. Verified Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

a. Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 governs counsel’s ability to appear in a matter as counsel pro hac vice. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.) Rule 9.40 states, “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.” (Id., Rule 9.40, subd. (a).) “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.” (Ibid.)

“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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40, subd. (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.” (Id., Rule 9.40, subd. (d).) Additionally, the applicant must also “pay a reasonable fee not exceeding $50 to the State Bar of California with the copy of the application and the notice of hearing that is served on the State Bar.” (Id., Rule 9.40, subd. (e).)

b. Compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40

The Court has reviewed the three (3) Verified Applications for Admission Pro Hac Vice filed by S. Derek Bauer, Esq. (“Mr. Bauer”), Kevin D. Bradberry, Esq. (“Mr. Bradberry”), and Ian K. Byrnside, Esq. (“Mr. Byrnside”) of Baker & Hostetler LLP, respectively, and find the three (3) Applications satisfy all requirements outlined within California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.)

Mr. Bauer, Mr. Bradberry, and Mr. Byrnside have each submitted a Verified Declaration confirming, (a) Mr. Bauer, Mr. Bradberry, and Mr. Byrnside are neither residents, regularly employed, nor regularly engaged in business, professional, or other activity in the State of California (Farag Decl., ¶¶ 1-2 [as to Mr. Bauer]; Farag Decl., ¶¶ 1-2 [as to Mr. Bradberry]; Farag Decl., ¶¶ 1-2 [as to Mr. Byrnside]); (b) Mr. Bauer’s, Mr. Bradberry’s, and Mr. Byrnside’s residence and office addresses (ibid. [as to Mr. Bauer]; ibid. [as to Mr. Bradberry]; ibid. [as to Mr. Byrnside]); (c) The courts to which Mr. Bauer, Mr. Bradberry, and Mr. Byrnside have been admitted to practice and the dates of admission (id., ¶ 7 [as to Mr. Bauer]; id., ¶ 7 [as to Mr. Bradberry]; id., ¶ 7 [as to Mr. Byrnside]); (d) Neither Mr. Bauer, Mr. Bradberry, nor Mr. Byrnside have been suspended or disbarred in any court, and are in good standing in those courts (id. ¶¶ 4-5 [as to Mr. Bauer]; id. ¶¶ 4-5 [as to Mr. Bradberry]; id. ¶¶ 4-5 [as to Mr. Byrnside]); (e) The title of each court and cause in which Mr. Bauer, Mr. Bradberry, and Mr. Byrnside have 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 (id. ¶ 6 [as to Mr. Bauer]; id. ¶ 6 [as to Mr. Bradberry]; id. ¶ 6 [as to Mr. Byrnside]); (f) the name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record (id. ¶ 9 [as to Mr. Bauer]; id. ¶ 9 [as to Mr. Bradberry]; id. ¶ 9 [as to Mr. Byrnside]); (g) Mr. Bauer’s, Mr. Bradberry’s, and Mr. Byrnside’s service of the Verified Applications upon all parties who have appeared in this action and the State Bar of California (id. ¶ 8 [as to Mr. Bauer, stating Application “uploaded to the Pro Hac Vice application case record for processing”]; id. ¶ 8 [as to Mr. Bradberry, stating Application “uploaded to the Pro Hac Vice application case record for processing”]; id. ¶ 8 [as to Mr. Byrnside, stating Application “uploaded to the Pro Hac Vice application case record for processing”]; Proof of Service [as to Mr. Bauer, Mr. Bradberry, and Mr. Byrnside Application, confirming service upon Defendant Molina Healthcare, Inc.]); and (h) Mr. Bauer’s, Mr. Bradberry’s, and Mr. Byrnside’s payment of a fee in the amount of $50 to the State Bar of California (id. ¶ 8 [as to Mr. Bauer]; id. ¶ 8 [as to Mr. Bradberry]; id. ¶ 8 [as to Mr. Byrnside]).

As Mr. Bauer’s, Mr. Bradberry’s, and Mr. Byrnside’s Verified Applications sufficiently satisfy the requirements of California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40, Mr. Bauer’s, Mr. Bradberry’s, and Mr. Byrnside’s admission as counsel pro hac vice in this action may be appropriately permitted. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.)

3. Conclusion

Verified Application For Admission of S. Derek Bauer Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

Verified Application For Admission of Kevin D. Bradberry Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

Verified Application For Admission of Ian K. Byrnside Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

Moving Attorneys are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at gdcdepts27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org. If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar. If a party submits on the tentative, the party’s email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.