Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 19STCV11326, Date: 2025-04-18 Tentative Ruling
DEPARTMENT 40 - MICHAEL J. SHULTZ - LAW AND MOTION RULINGS
The Court issues tentative rulings on certain motions.The tentative ruling will not become the final ruling until the hearing [see CRC 3.1308(a)(2)]. If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance, all counsel must agree and choose which counsel will give notice. That counsel must 1) email Dept 40 by 8:30 a.m. on the day of the hearing (smcdept40@lacourt.org) with a copy to the other party(ies) and state that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling, and 2) serve notice of the ruling on all parties. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no email is necessary and all parties should appear at the hearing in person or by Court Call.
Case Number: 19STCV11326 Hearing Date: April 18, 2025 Dept: 40
19STCV11326
Christopher Thannhaeuseur v. TKH Zuma, LLC, et al.
Friday,
April 18, 2025
FINAL [TENTATIVE]
ORDER
I.
BACKGROUND
This
action arose from the breach of a residential lease agreement involving a home
owned
by Defendant and leased to Plaintiff. Following a
court trial, the Hon. D. Sotelo entered
judgment in favor of Plaintiff and awarded
attorney fees. (Remittitur, 10/11/24, p.2.) Defendant, TKH Zuma, LLC appealed.
(Id. at p.4.) On January 16, 2025, the Court of Appeal for the Second
District affirmed judgment in favor of Plaintiff but struck some of their
requested attorney fees (Remittitur Part I, Part II p. 3.) On February 26, having
won their appeal, Plaintiff moved this Court to grant attorney fees. On April
1, 2025, this Court granted Plaintiff’s motion. Defendant now applies to admit
new counsel pro hac vice, as they intend to appeal this ruling.
II.
ARGUMENTS
A.
Application filed March 19, 2025.
Defendant
TKH Zuma, LLC filed an application for Howard Sutter to appear pro hac vice to appeal
Plaintiff’s recent Motion for Attorney Fees. Mr. Sutter has appeared pro hac
vice on behalf of Defendant for two separate appeals in this case.
B.
Opposition filed April 7, 2025.
Plaintiff
argues that Defendant’s application is faulty, as they no longer have a local
attorney of record.
III.
LEGAL STANDARDS
An
Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice must state: (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
licensee in 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 licensee of the State Bar of California who is
attorney of record. (CRC Rule 9.40(d).)
IV.
DISCUSSION
Defendant’s application meets all the
procedural requirements for admission. Applicant Howard T. Sutter attests to
both his residence and office address, both of which are in Florida. (Sutter
Decl. ¶ 2.) He also attests to all the courts he has been admitted to and
includes the dates of admission. (Id. ¶¶ 3-4.) Mr. Sutter states he is in good
standing with all these courts, and that he is not disbarred. (Id.
¶¶ 4-5.) Mr. Sutter lists his previous applications for admission pro hac vice,
all of which related to appeals in this same case and were unopposed by
Plaintiff. (Id. ¶ 7.) Finally, Mr. Sutter provides the
name, address, and number of Harrison Kordestani, the California attorney of
record. (Id. ¶ 10.) Taken at face value, this application
meets all the requirements for a pro hac vice admission.
Plaintiff opposes this application.
Plaintiff contends that Harrison Kordestani is no longer an appropriate
attorney of record. (Opp. p. 2:7-8.) Plaintiff points out that Mr. Kordestani’s
refers to himself as a “limited scope counsel of record”. (Kordestani Decl. ¶ 1.)
However, Mr. Kordestani has been absent from mediations, hearings, phone calls,
and appeals in this case. (Kitson Decl. ¶¶ 9-14.) Additionally, Mr. Kordestani
claims to be retired. (MPA. P 4:1-5.)
In their Memorandum of Points and
Authorities supporting the application, Mr. Kordestani concedes that he retired
as of February 2025. (Ibid.) Mr. Kordestani also suggests that the Pro
Hac Vice application is only temporary until the Defendant can retain new
counsel. Mr. Kordestani’s admission that
he is “retired” suggests that he is no longer the attorney of record and/or no represents
Defendant. His notice of substitution, filed
on November 1, 2021, is further evidence supporting this conclusion. His Notice of Limited Scope Representation,
filed on November 17, 2021, confirm his belief
and/or intent that he is no longer the attorney of record for Defendant. On April 1, 2025, this court inquired of
Thomas Griffith, the attorney specially appearing for Mr. Kordestani, Mr. Griffith could not definitively state
whether Mr. Kordestani has substituted in as the attorney of record.
V.
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application
is CONDITIONALLY DENIED, subject to a hearing wherein Mr. Kordestani can personally
attest that he is the attorney of record for DEFENDANT. This could also be accomplished at the Order
to Show Cause hearing. If this Court finds that Mr. Kordestani is both a member
of the California Bar in good standing, and the attorney of record for
Plaintiff in this case, then this application will be accepted.