Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV02188, Date: 2024-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02188    Hearing Date: March 25, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Robert Roetzel (“Counsel”) has filed a verified application to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiff Michael Hart (“Plaintiff”).  The application is unopposed.

ANALYSIS

            California Rules of Court rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of a $50.00 fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)

The application must state: (1) the applicant’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member of good standing in those courts; (4) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title of each 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) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)

            The Court finds that the application provides all this information.  With regard to notice on to the State Bar, Counsel has provided proofs of service indicating that the State Bar was served with the application, notice of hearing, and proposed order.

            However, the verified application indicates, “I, Robert E. Snider, hereby submit this verified application to appear as counsel pro hac vice […]” yet the application is signed by Robert E Roetzel.  Moreover, the proposed order indicates “Robert E. Roetzel Law PC may appear as counsel […]” yet the headers indicate Robert Roetzel works on behalf of the law firm Furtado Law PC.  Therefore, the Court cannot grant the application as submitted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

In light of the identified discrepancies in Counsel’s application, the Court denies without prejudice Counsel’s application to appear pro hac vice. 

Counsel for Plaintiff shall give notice and file a proof of service of such.

DATED: March 25, 2024                                                       ___________________________

Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court