Judge: Michael E. Whitaker, Case: 23STCV30533, Date: 2024-09-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30533    Hearing Date: September 26, 2024    Dept: 207

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

Jessica Fuller (“Fuller”) and Stephen Steele (“Steele”) (together, “Counsel”) each move for a court order allowing them to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants Unto Infinity LLC; Siri Singh Sahib of Sikh Dharma; Siri Singh Sahib Corporation; Sikh Dharma International; 3Ho Foundation International; and Kundalini Research Institute (“Defendants”) in this action.  The applications are 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 verified applications include all of the above information.  Further, the applications indicate the $50 fee was paid to the State Bar through the Admissions Application Portal.  (Fuller Decl. ¶ 10; Steele Decl. ¶ 10; Acosta Decl. ¶ 4.) 

With regard to notice on to the State Bar, however, Fuller and Steele indicate the State Bar was electronically served with the verified applications and notices of hearing through the admissions applicant portal.  (Acosta Decl. ¶ 4; Fuller Decl. ¶ 10; Steele Decl. ¶ 10.)  

However, 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.) 

Here, there is no proof of service indicating the State Bar was served with notice of the hearing by mail as required. 

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court continues the hearings to October 31, 2024 at 8:30 A.M. in Department 207 to permit each Counsel to effectuate proper service on the State Bar of California by mail at its San Francisco office.

Each Counsel shall provide notice of their continued hearing and file the notices with proofs of service forthwith.

DATED: September 26, 2024                                                 ___________________________

Michael E. Whitaker

                                                                                          Judge of the Superior Court