Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22SMCV02568, Date: 2024-11-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22SMCV02568    Hearing Date: November 19, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTION

Seth E. Darmstadter (“Counsel”) has filed a motion to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiff Adam Bold (“Plaintiff”).  The motion 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 the application 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).)

            In support of the application, Plaintiff has provided the Declaration of Seth E. Darmstadter, which provides all this information.  Further, Plaintiff has provided the declaration of Morris Sarafian, local counsel, providing proof that the application fee was paid.

            However, the proof of service does not indicate that the State Bar was served by mail at its San Francisco office.  This is insufficient 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.) 

            The Court continued the hearing to enable Counsel to effectuate proper service on the State Bar by mail at its San Francisco office.  Subsequently, Counsel filed a Supplemental Declaration of Morris Sarafian, demonstrating that on October 22, 2024, service of the application and updated hearing date were served by certified mail on the State Bar at its San Francisco office.  Therefore, the motion is both procedurally and substantively proper.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, finding Counsel has satisfied all requirements, the Court grants Counsel’s motion to appear pro hac vice in this matter.  Counsel shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file the notice with a proof of service forthwith.

DATED: November 19, 2024                                                 ___________________________

Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court