Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV37779, Date: 2024-05-08 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV37779 Hearing Date: May 8, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: May 8, 2024
Moving Party: Timothy St. George (“St. George”)
Responding Party:
Unopposed
Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice
The Court has
considered the moving papers. No opposition papers were filed.
The Application
of Timothy St. George to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
Background
This
is an action arising from the alleged breach of a contract to pay for health
coverage. On October 12, 2021, in the instant action, Plaintiff Shane D.
Kutasi, by and through his guardian ad litem John P. Kutasi
(“Plaintiff”) filed a Complaint against Defendants Blue Cross of California dba
Anthem Blue Cross (“Anthem”) and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, alleging causes
of action for: (1) breach of contract; and (2) breach of the implied covenant of
good faith and fair dealing.
On
October 29, 2021, John P. Kutasi was appointed as guardian ad litem for
Plaintiff Shane D. Kutasi.
On
December 16, 2021, Defendant Anthem filed an Answer to the Complaint.
On
February 15, 2023, in John P. Kutsasi v. Blue Cross of California dba
Anthem Blue Cross, LASC Case No. 23STC03361 (the “2d Action”), Plaintiff
John P. Kutasi, as Executor of the Will of Barbara E. Kutasi, Deceased, and
Successor in Interest to Barbara E. Kutasi, Deceased filed a Complaint against
Defendant Anthem alleging causes of action for breach of contract and breach of
the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.
On
May 17, 2023, the Court entered an order deeming the instant action and the 2d
Action as related cases, with the instant action being the lead case. (05/17/23
Minute Order.) The Court ordered the actions consolidated. (05/17/23 Minute
Order.)
On
May 18, 2023, in the instant action, Plaintiffs Shane D. Kutasi, by and through
his guardian ad litem John P. Kutasi and John P. Kutasi, individually
(“Plaintiffs”) filed the operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) against
Defendant Anthem alleging causes of action for: (1) breach of contract; (2)
breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; and (3)
intentional infliction of emotional distress.
On
March 26, 2024, Timothy St. George (“St. George”) filed and served the instant
application to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant
Anthem. The application was served on March 25, 2024.
Legal
Standard
California
Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in
another jurisdiction may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State
by filing “with the court a verified
application with proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil
Procedure section 1013a of a copy of the application and 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(c)(1).)
“An applicant for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice under
this rule must 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(e).)
The
written application must provide the following information: (1) applicant
attorney’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the
applicant attorney has been admitted and dates of admission; (3) representation
that the attorney is a member in good standing in the courts of admission and
is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (4) the title of each
court and action in which the applicant attorney has appeared pro hac vice in
this State in the preceding two years, if any; and (5) the name, address, and
telephone number of the active California State Bar member who is counsel of
record in the local action. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(d).)
Discussion
The application of St. George sets forth: (1) St.
George’s residence and office addresses (Application, ¶ 3); (2) the courts in
which St. George has been admitted and the date of admission (Id., ¶¶
5-6); (3) that St. George is in good standing in courts of admission and is not
currently suspended or disbarred in any court (Id., ¶¶ 4, 7); (4) that St.
George has never filed a pro hac vice application in California within
the past two years (Id., ¶ 9); and (5) the name and address of counsel
of record in the local action (Id., ¶ 11). St. George is not employed in
the State of California and does not engage in any substantial business,
professional, or other activities in the State of California. (Id., ¶¶ 10.)
St. George resides in Virginia. (Id., ¶ 3.) St. George provides proof of
payment for $50.00 to the State Bar of California. (Id., ¶ 12; Exh. A.)
In support of St.
George’s application, Jenny C. Chien (“Chien”), declares that Defendant Anthem served
the Notice of Application of Timothy St. George to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac
Vice on behalf of Defendant Anthem and the accompanying application and
supporting papers on the State Bar of California together with payment in the
amount of $50.00. (Chien Decl., ¶ 3.)
The Court finds
that the application is compliant except that St. George has not presented a
proof of service showing that the State Bar of California was served with the
application by mail as required by Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(c)(1). The
Court also notes that the application was served by electronic mail on counsel
for Plaintiffs, which is improper under Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(c)(1). The
application should have been served by mail on all interested parties.
Therefore,
the Application of Timothy St. George to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is
DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
It is so
ordered.
Dated:
May 8, 2024
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court