Judge Mark E. Windham, Case Number: 24STLC04329, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Mark E. Windham, Case: 24STLC04329, Date: 2024-10-16 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STLC04329 Hearing Date: October 16, 2024 Dept: 26

Spasojevic v. Playa Hotels & Resorts, LLC, et al.

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE

(CRC Rule 9.40)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Jenna Fischman, Esq.’s Application for Admission as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Playa Hotels & Resorts, LLC is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

ANALYSIS:

On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff Nikola Spasojevic (“Plaintiff”) filed the instant action against Defendant Playa Hotels & Resorts, LLC (“Defendant”). Defendant filed a motion to dismiss for forum non conveniens, which is set to be heard on November 7, 2024. Defendant filed the instant Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice on August 27, 2024. To date, no opposition has been filed.

Counsel who are not active members of the California State Bar, and have not been granted permission to appear pro hac vice, are prohibited from representing a party in California courts. (Gentis v. Safeguard Bus. Systems, Inc. (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1294, 1308.) Absent consent, local practice by out-of state counsel in California courts is disallowed. (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 130; Consumers Lobby against Monopolies v. PUC (1979) 25 Cal. 3d 891, 914 n.11.) “It is common practice … to permit upon request an attorney holding a license to practice law from one state to appear in the courts of a sister state, and there take part in the trial of an action pending in said courts.” (In re Application of McCue (1930) 211 Cal. 57, 67.) 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. Superior Court (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. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 949, 953-54 (criminal action). Appearance pro hac vice is a privilege and not a right under the United States constitution. (Leis v. Flynt (1979) 439 U.S. 438, 441.) “Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by out-of-state counsel in California lawsuits is cause for denial of his or her application.” Walter E. Heller, 111 Cal.App.3d at 706.)

Applicant Jenna Fischman, Esq. has not satisfied the procedural and substantive requirements set forth at California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40:

Associated with California Attorney: Yes, Quinn Gardner (SBN: 345496)
Verified declaration: Yes
Service on State Bar at SF Office: No proof of service.
Payment of application fee to State Bar: No proof.
Good standing and not currently suspended/disbarred: Yes. (App., Fischman Decl., ¶¶2-4.)
Number of other Calif. appearances in last 2 years: none. (Id. at ¶7.)
Residence and office address: Yes. (Id. at ¶1.)

Additionally, the application is not accompanied by the required “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Attorney Jenna Fischman, Esq.’s Application for Admission as Counsel Pro Hac Vice for Defendant Playa Hotels & Resorts, LLC is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

Court clerk to give notice.