Judge: Michael P. Linfield, Case: 23STCV20864, Date: 2024-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV20864    Hearing Date: April 12, 2024    Dept: 34

SUBJECT:        Verified Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Moving Party: David A. Klein

Resp. Party:    None

        The Court GRANTS the Application, conditional on Counsel Applicant providing: (1) his residential address; (2) proof of the $50.00 payment to the State Bar; and (3) proof of service on the State Bar at its San Francisco address.

BACKGROUND:

On August 30, 2023, Law Offices of William I Rothbard (“Rothbard”) and The Altman Law Group (“Altman”) filed their Complaint against Intermarketing Media, LLC, Jason Krieck, David Klein, and David A. Klein P.C. on causes of action arising from a fee dispute. Rothbard and Altman are both sole proprietorships, and they are litigating this matter in propria persona.

On September 19, 2023, Rothbard and Altman filed their Verified First Amended Complaint (FAC).

On December 26, 2023, Intermarketing Media, LLC, Jason Krieck, David Klein, and David A. Klein P.C. filed their Verified Answer.

On January 5, 2024, Intermarketing Media, LLC, Jason Krieck, David Klein, and David A. Klein P.C. filed: (1) Amended Verified Answer; and (2) Verified Cross-Complaint against Rothbard and Altman.

On February 9, 2024, Intermarketing Media, LLC, Jason Krieck, David Klein, and David A. Klein P.C. filed their Amended Verified Cross-Complaint (“FACC”).

On March 20, 2024, David Klein filed his Verified Application to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice (“Application”).

        CONCLUSION:

Counsel Applicant seeks admission to appear as counsel pro hac vice to represent Defendants in this action, and to be associated as co-counsel with Panda Kroll.

Counsel Applicant is a member in good standing of the State of New Jersey, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, and the United States Court of Appeal for the Third Circuit. (Application, ¶¶ 2–3.)

Counsel Applicant has not appeared in the last two years in any cases before California state courts or federal courts located in California. (Application, ¶ 3.)

Counsel Applicant has not provided proof that the $50.00 fee required to be admitted pro hac vice has been paid to the State Bar of California. (Application, ¶ 8.) Further, Counsel Applicant has not yet provided proof of service of the Application on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco address. (Ibid.) Finally, Counsel Applicant has only provided his city and state of residence, not his address as required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(1). (Application, ¶ 1.)

        The Court GRANTS the Application, conditional on Counsel Applicant providing: (1) the residential address; (2) proof of the $50.00 payment to the State Bar; and (3) proof of service on the State Bar at its San Francisco address.