Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 20STCV07323, Date: 2023-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV07323    Hearing Date: February 6, 2023    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely (which is highly encouraged).  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Attorney Thomas W. Baker (Baker) moves to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Defendant and Cross-Defendant Otis Elevator Company (Defendant).

ANALYSIS

Per California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, attorneys who are licensed to practice and in good standing in other states may, upon court approval, appear as counsel pro hac vice in a pending case if an active member of the State Bar of California also appears as counsel of record.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)  

Here, Baker is a resident of Ohio.  Baker is licensed to practice and in good standing in Ohio, Pennsylvania, and various federal courts.  Baker is associated with Defendant’s counsel, Daniel J. Kelly, Anthony D. Brosamle, and Rebecca M. Biernat of Tucker Ellis, LLP, who are licensed to practice in California.  Baker is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court.  Baker’s application to appear pro hac vice in California has been granted once in the past two years.  Baker has paid the pro hac vice $50 fee required by the State Bar of California. (See Declaration of Rebecca M. Biernat, ¶ 3, Exhibit A.) 

Per the proof of service, the moving papers including the notice of motion were not served on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office in compliance with Rule 9.40(c)(1) which provides:  “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. 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), emphasis added.)  Here, the proof of service indicates that the moving papers were served on counsel for the parties. 

Therefore, the Court shall continue the hearing on  application to March 16, 2023 at 1:30 PM in Department 32 which should provide Baker/Defendant with ample time to properly notice the parties and the State Bar of the pro hac vice application. 

Defendant shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.