Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 22STCV01351, Date: 2022-08-08 Tentative Ruling

The Court often posts its tentative several days in advance of the hearing. Please re-check the tentative rulings the day before the hearing to be sure that the Court has not revised the ruling since the time it was posted.

Please call the clerk at (213) 633-0154 by 4:00 pm. the court day before the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative.

Case Number: 22STCV01351    Hearing Date: August 8, 2022    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:                 Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice

Moving Party:          Matthew S. Sarelson

Resp. Party:             None

Matthew S. Sarelson’s Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

I.           BACKGROUND

On January 12, 2022, Plaintiffs Sawyer S. (“Sawyer”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Angela Sharbino, Donlad D. (“Donlad”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Yvonne Dougher, Ayden M. (“Ayden”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Maria Mekus, Connor C. (“Connor”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Amber Cain, Hayden H. (“Hayden”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Carla Haas, Walker B. (“Walker”), a minor by and through his guardian ad litem, Jennifer Bryant, Sophia F. (“Sophia”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Heather Trimmer, Corinne D. (“Corinne”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Stephenie Areeco, Symonne H. (“Symonne”), a minor by and through her guardian ad litem, Tania Harrison, and Claire E. (“Claire”) and Reese E. (“Reese”), minors by and through their guardian ad litem, Ashley Anne-Rock Smith (hereafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiffs”), filed a complaint against Defendants Tiffany Rockelle Smith, Hunter Hill, and Piper Rockelle, Inc. ("Defendants") alleging the following causes of action:

1.   Violation of California Civil Code § 3344

2.           Violation of Common Law Right of Publicity

3.           Unjust Enrichment

4.           Intentional Interference with Contractual Relations

5.           Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic Advantage

6.           Civil Conspiracy

7.           Sexual Battery

8.           Battery

9.           Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

10.       Violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17200, et seq.

On May 11, 2022, Defendants filed an Answer to the Complaint by Plaintiffs denying each and every cause of action alleged within the Complaint asserting twenty affirmative defenses.

        On May 31, 2022, Plaintiffs filed an Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Matthew S. Sarelson.

On June 24, 2022, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice for failure to comply with the Court’s Tentative Ruling requiring Plaintiffs to file and provide proof of service to the State Bar and proof of the required $50.00 payment.

        On July 18, 2022, Plaintiffs filed the instant Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Matthew S. Sarelson.

II.        ANALYSIS

A.          Legal Standard

Under California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a),

[a] person who is not a member of the State Bar of California but who is a member in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state, may in the discretion of such court be permitted upon written application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, provided that an active member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

No person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under rule 9.40(a) if the person is "(1) A resident of the State of California; (2) Regularly employed in the State of California; or (3) Regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California."  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) 

"Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application."  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(b).)  Any individual "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."  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c).)  Additionally, "[t]he 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."  (Ibid.)

The application must include:

(1) The applicant's residence and office address; (2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) That the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) The title of 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)

An applicant "must pay a reasonable fee not exceeding $50 to the State Bar of California with the copy of the application and the notice of hearing that is served on the State Bar."  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e).)  If the applicant is permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice, he is "subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California."  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(f).)  Additionally, "[t]he counsel pro hac vice must familiarize himself or herself and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California and will be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar with respect to any of his or her acts occurring in the course of such appearance."  (Ibid.)

B.          Discussion

The application includes all of the required information pursuant to rule 9.40(a) and (d).  Sarelson declares (1) that his office and residence are located in Coral Gables, Florida (Sarelson Decl., ¶¶ 2, 3); (2) the courts to which he has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission (Id. ¶ 5); (3) that he is currently in good standing in those courts having never been suspended or disbarred (Id. ¶ 6); (5) that in the past two years he has not applied to appear pro hac vice in California (Id. ¶ 7); and (6) the name and information of an active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record (Id. ¶ 8).

Sarelson also provides evidence that Defendant was properly served, that a copy of the application was served on the State Bar, and that the $50 fee has been paid. (Sarelson Decl., Proof of Service, Exs. A, B.)  Sarelson’s application is unopposed.

III.     CONCLUSION

Matthew S. Sarelson’s Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.