Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV26526, Date: 2023-05-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV26526    Hearing Date: May 4, 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 Husein Hadi (Hadi) moves to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff Irma Garza (Plaintiff).

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, Hadi is a resident of Texas.  Hadi is licensed to practice and in good standing in Texas, as well as several federal courts.  Hadi is associated with Plaintiff’s counsel, Shea N. Palavan (Palavan), a managing member of the law firm Palavan & Moore, PLLC, who is licensed to practice in California.  Hadi has never been suspended or disbarred by any court.  Hadi has applied three times to appear as counsel pro hac vice in California within the past two years.  Hadi further avers to the following:

·         I have requested Mr. Palavan to serve on the State Bar of California a copy of this Verified Application and a check for the required fees for processing as contemplated by California Rule of Court 983(c).

·         Mr. Palavan has assured compliance with this request, including attachment of all required papers in support of this Verified Application, and a Proof of Service that reflects such service in compliance with California Code of Civil Procedure § 1013(a).

(Application of Husein Hadi, ¶ 6.)  However, the Court finds there is an issue with Hadi’s application to appear pro hac vice, which is threefold. 

            First, although Hadi has stated the number of times he has applied to appear pro hac vice in California within the past two years, Hadi has failed to indicate which of these applications were granted as is required by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(d)(5). 

            Second, Hadi has failed to sufficiently establish he has paid the $50 applicant fee to, and served a copy of the instant pro hac vice application on, the State Bar of California, as is required under California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(e).  Though Hadi states that Palavan has served a copy of the verified application, and a check for the required fee, on the State Bar of California, the Court finds that assertion to be insufficient to establish Hadi’s compliance with Rule 9.40(e).  Further, the Court notes that Hadi advances the declaration of Palavan.  But in that declaration, Palavan makes no mention of paying the applicable fee to the State Bar of California, or serving a copy of the Hadi’s application on the State Bar of California.

            Third, Hadi has not advanced sufficient evidence to demonstrate compliance with California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(c).  Rule 9.40(c)(1) 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, including the notice of application, were only served on counsel for the parties.  As previously mentioned, though Hadi contends Palavan served a copy of Hadi’s application, including attachment of all required papers, on the State Bar of California, the Court finds that the statement fails to establish proper notice of the hearing to the State Bar of California – San Francisco office.  

Therefore, the Court denies Hadi’s application without prejudice as procedurally defective.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.