Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 21STCV46412, Date: 2022-10-31 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV46412    Hearing Date: October 31, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:         Application of Anthony J. D’Agostino to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Moving Party:  Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant General Star Indemnity Company

Resp. Party:    None

        The Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is DENIED without prejudice to Applicant submitting an new application.

BACKGROUND:

On April 23, 2021, Plaintiffs Noah Meiner, Lennifer Hilliard, and Sandra Wilson (“Meiner et al.”) filed their Complaint against Defendants Robin Amelia Sheehan, Brian Morgan Heit, Matthew Jacob Feaver, and Heit Law Group (“Sheehan et al.”). The underlying issue regards the alleged malpractice (and related claims) of Sheehan et al. in Meiner et al.’s prior lawsuit on a specific e-spam law.

On January 25, 2022, Sheehan et al. filed their Cross-Complaint against Cross-Defendants Gregory Walston and Walston & Associates d.b.a. The Walson Law Group (“Walston”).

On April 21, 2022, Walston filed their Cross-Complaint against General Star Insurance Company (actual name General Star Indemnity Company), Robin Amelia Sheehan, Jay Fink, Noah Meiner, Lennifer Hilliard, and Sandra Wilson.

On April 29, 2022, Walston filed their First Amended Cross-Complaint (FACC).

On July 22, 2022, Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant General Star Indemnity Company (“General Star”) filed its Cross-Complaint against Meiner et al., Sheehan et al., and Walston.

On September 22, 2022, General Star filed this Application of Anthony J. D’Agostino to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice (“Application”).

The Application is unopposed.

ANALYSIS:

Applicant Anthony J. D’Agostino seeks admission to appear as counsel pro hac vice to represent Cross-Defendant/Cross-Complainant General Star Indemnity Company in this action, and to be associated as co-counsel with David A. Tartaglio. Jeffrey N. Williams. (D’Agostino Verified Application, ¶ 6.)

Applicant is a member in good standing of the State of Illinois and is admitted to practice before the the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. (D’Agostino Verified Application, ¶¶ 2­–3.)

Applicant has only appeared pro hac vice in California once in the past two years. (D’Agostino Verified Application, ¶ 5.) The application also provides that the $50 fee required to be admitted pro hac vice has been paid to the State Bar of California. (Application, Ex. A.)

However, the proof of service filed in support of this application is defective because Applicant has not demonstrated that service was made upon the State Bar at its San Francisco address. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)

        Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice Applicant Anthony J. D’Agostino’s application to be admitted pro hac vice.