Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23SMCV04870, Date: 2024-01-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23SMCV04870    Hearing Date: January 4, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

APPLICATION

Defendants Megaport (USA), Inc. and Megaport (Australia) Pty Ltd. (“Defendants”) move for a court order allowing James S. Yu (“Applicant”) to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants in this action.  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 neither Defendants nor Applicant have advanced sufficient evidence 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.) 

            Here, the proof of service indicate that the moving papers, including the notice of application, were only served on counsel for Plaintiffs.  As such, the Court finds that Defendants and Applicant have not established proper notice of the hearing to the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office.  

Therefore, the Court denies the pro hac vice application without prejudice as procedurally defective. 

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

DATED: January 4, 2024                                                       ___________________________

Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court