Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

IPPON TECHNOLOGY INC.

Plaintiff,

vs.

RESONATE LABS INC.

Defendants.

Case No.: 23STCV21921

DEPARTMENT 45

[TENTATIVE] RULING

Action Filed: 09/12/2023

Trial Date: None Set.

Hearing date: September 4, 2024

Moving Part(ies): David Van Leeuwen, Esq. and Francois Peyrot, Esq

Responding Party: None

Pro Hac Vice x 2

The Court considered the moving papers.

The motions are GRANTED.

Background

On September 12, 2023, Plaintiff Ippon Technology Inc. (“Ippon” or “Plaintiff”) filed the complaint against Defendant Resonate Labs, Inc. (“Resonate” or “Defendant”) and Does 1 through 20. The complaint alleges (1) breach of contract; (2) unjust enrichment; and (3) account stated.

On July 25, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed the two pro hac vice applications for David Van Leeuwen, Esq. and Francois Peyrot, Esq.

On August 8, 2024, Plaintiff’s counsel filed two amended pro hac vice applications for David Van Leeuwen, Esq. and Francois Peyrot, Esq.

As of August 30, 2024, no oppositions have been filed.

Legal Standard

Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To be admitted pro hac vice, one must be “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.” California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(a). However, in no case shall an attorney appear pro hac vice if the attorney is a resident of California, regularly employed in California, or “regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.” Ibid.

An attorney seeking pro hac vice admission must file a verified application in both court and the State Bar of California establishing

(1) [t]he applicant's residence and office address; (2)[t]he courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3)[t]hat the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4)[t]hat the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5)[t]he 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)[t]he name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record. (California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(d). )

Lastly, repeated applications for pro hac vice appearance may result in denial. California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(b).

Discussion

Merits

Here, Counsel van Leeuwen and Peyrot have complied with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. Counsel Van Leeuwen and Peyrot are not residents of California. (van Leeuwen Decl. ¶ 1; Peyrot Decl. ¶ 1.) Counsel Peyrot is admitted to practice in New York. (Peyrot Decl. ¶ 3.) Counsel van Leeuwen is admitted to practice in New York and District of Columbia. (van Leeuwen Decl. ¶ 3.) Counsel van Leeuwen and Peyrot are members in good standing. (van Leeuwen Decl. ¶ 4; Peyrot Decl. ¶ 4.) Counsel have not been suspended or disbarred in any court. (Id. at ¶ 5; Id. at ¶ 5.) Counsel have not filed pro hac vice applications in the past two years. (Id. at ¶ 6; Id. at ¶ 6.) They also provided the name, address, and telephone number of Alana Yakovlev (SBN: 270910) who is Plaintiff’s counsel of record. (Id. at ¶ 8.)

Therefore, the Court GRANTS the Pro Hac Vice applications for David Van Leeuwen, Esq. and Francois Peyrot, Esq.

It is so ordered.

Dated: September 4, 2024

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court