Judge: Martha K. Gooding, Case: 2021-01214364, Date: 2022-09-26 Tentative Ruling
Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice
Before the Court is the application by Lora A. Schneider, Esq. to appear pro hac vice for Defendant Mavis Seeto McDonnell in this action, as co-Counsel with California licensed attorneys Paul K. Schrieffer, Esq. and Wayne H. Hammack, Esq.
Because the Application does not provide all the required information, the Court continues the hearing to November 14, 2022 at 1:30 p.m. to give Applicant an opportunity to provide a revised application/supplemental declaration that meets all the requirements of Rule 9.40(d) of the California Rules of Court.
Applications to be admitted pro hac vice are governed by CRC 9.40, which provides, in relevant part as follows:
(a) Eligibility
A person who is not a member of the State Bar of California but who is a member 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 member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record. 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.
(b) Repeated appearances as a cause for denial
Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.
(c)(1) Application in superior court
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 1013(a) 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. The notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period.
(d) Contents of application
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 member in good standing in those courts;
(4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court;
(5) The title of 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 member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.
In addition, under CRC 9.40(e), an applicant for pro hac vice admission must provide proof that it has paid the required fee to the State Bar of California and has provided a copy of the Application and Notice of Hearing to the State Bar.
Here, the Application does not provide all the required information.
For example: Ms. Schneider’s Declaration does not provide the information required by CRC 9.40(d)(5) – the title of the court and cause in which the applicant previously filed an application to appear pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of each of those applications, and whether each application was granted.
Ms. Schneider’s Declaration also does not provide proof of payment of the fee to the State Bar.
And Ms. Schneider’s Declaration does not establish that she is eligible to appear pro hac vice under CRC 9.40(a), i.e., that she is not a resident of the State of California, is not regularly employed in the State of California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. See CRC 9.40(a).
The Court notes that the Application attaches a document that purports to be a letter from the California State Bar “approving” a pro hac vice application in connection with three cases. But the letter is not attached to any Declaration and is not authenticated. More significantly, the letter does not establish whether any prior applications by Ms. Schneider to appear pro hac vice in this State were approved by the courts in which the cases were pending and the applications were made.
Defendant is ordered to serve notice of this Order.