Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV30534, Date: 2023-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30534    Hearing Date: January 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

Attorney Douglas R. Williams (Williams) applies to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff Damian Palomino (Plaintiff).

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).)

Williams is licensed to practice and in good standing in Florida, Washington, and various federal courts.  Williams is a resident of Washington.  Williams is associated with Plaintiff’s counsel Nicholas J. Neidzwski of Anderson Carey Williams & Neidzwski, who is licensed to practice in California. Williams served this application on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office.  However, Williams fails to indicate whether he has appeared pro hac vice in California within the last two years.  Further, Williams fails to advance proof that he paid the $50 fee to the instant motion, as required. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c) & rule 9.40(e).)

As such, Williams’ application to appear pro hac vice is denied without prejudice as procedurally defective.  Plaintiff shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.