Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 21STCV42301, Date: 2022-10-27 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV42301    Hearing Date: October 27, 2022    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 Luke Nikas of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP (Nikas) applies to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Defendants Alexander R. Baldwin II and El Dorado Pictures, Inc. (collectively, Defendants). 

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).)  Moreover, “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, 9.40(e).)

Per the verified petition, Nikas is licensed to practice and in good standing in the State of New York, and various federal courts.  Nikas is a resident of Connecticut, and has appeared twice pro hac vice in California within the last two years. Nikas is associated with Defendants’ counsel, Robert M. Schwartz of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, who is licensed to practice in California.  (See Verified Petition, ¶¶ 2-9.) 

Per the proof of service, the application was served on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office.  However, Nikas fails to advance sufficient, competent proof that the requisite fee has been paid to the State Bar of California per Rule 9.40.  The only reference to the payment of the fee is set forth in the proof of service, but it is unclear to the Court as to who made the payment, how the payment was made and when the payment was made. 

Accordingly, Nikas’ application to appear pro hac vice is denied without prejudice as procedurally defective. 

Defendants shall provide notice of this order and file a proof of service of such.