Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 22STCV36727, Date: 2023-02-01 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV36727    Hearing Date: February 1, 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



 





























DEPARTMENT

32

HEARING DATE

February
1, 2023

CASE NUMBER

22STCV36727

MOTION



Application
to Appear Pro Hac Vice

MOVING PARTY

Attorney
Shaun I. Blick



OPPOSING PARTY

None


 



Attorney Shaun I. Blick of Blick Law LLC (Blick), applies to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Plaintiff Madelyn Geltch (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, subd. (a).)



 



Blick is licensed to
practice and in good standing in New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and
various federal courts.  Blick is a
resident of New Jersey, and has not applied nor appeared pro hac vice in
California within the last two years. Nikas is associated with Plaintiff’s
counsel Craig A. Bealer of The Dominguez Firm, LLP who is licensed to practice
in California.



 



Per the proofs of service,
the application and amended application were not served on the State Bar of
California at its San Francisco office in compliance with Rule 9.40(c)(1) which
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 proofs of service
attached to the application and amended application indicate that the
applications were served on the State Bar “via online submission only,” not by
mail. And the Court notes that the Declaration of Craig A. Bealer in support of
the application was not served on the State Bar in accordance with Rule 9.40(c)(1).  Equally important, the application and
amended application were not served on the parties and the State Bar in
compliance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 which requires the “papers”
(the application) be served 16 court days before the scheduled hearing.  Per the proofs of service attached to the
application and amended applications, the applications were “served” on the
parties and the State Bar on January 27, 2023 – only 3 court days before the
scheduled hearing (not including the two court days that should be added per
the service by electronic transmission – see Code of Civil Procedure section
1010.6, subdivision (a)(4)(A)-(B).) 



 



Therefore, the Court shall
continue the hearing on Blick’s application to March 8, 2023 at 1:30 PM in
Department 32 which should provide Blick/Plaintiffs with ample time to properly
notice the parties and the State Bar of the pro hac vice application. 



 



Plaintiffs shall provide
notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service regarding the same.