Judge: Michael Shultz, Case: 21CMCV00087, Date: 2023-10-31 Tentative Ruling

INSTRUCTIONS: If the parties wish to submit on the tentative ruling and avoid a court appearance on the matter, the moving party must:

1. Contact the opposing party and all other parties who have appeared in the action and confirm that each will submit on the tentative ruling.

2. No later than 4:00 p.m. on the court day before the hearing, call the Courtroom (310-761-4302) advising that all parties will submit on the tentative ruling and waive hearing; and

3. Serve notice of the Court's ruling on all parties entitled to receive service.

If this procedure is followed, when the case is called the Court will enter its ruling on the motion in accordance with its tentative ruling. If any party declines to submit on the tentative ruling, then no telephone call is necessary, and all parties should appear at the hearing. If there is neither a telephone call nor an appearance, then the matter may either be taken off calendar or ruled on. 

TENTATIVE RULINGS -- http://www.lacourt.org/tentativeRulingNet/ui/main.aspx?casetype=civil

Case Number: 21CMCV00087    Hearing Date: November 16, 2023    Dept: A

21CMCV00087 Michael Buck, et al. v. Peace Apostolic Church, Inc., et al.

[TENTATIVE] ORDER GRANTING APPLICATION OF DAVID DEAN FRANKLIN OBERG TO APPEAR PRO  HAC VICE FOR PLAINTIFFS

I.        BACKGROUND

       The complaint filed on April 20, 2021, alleges that Plaintiffs, Michael Buck, and John Gonzalez (“Plaintiffs”), are members and leaders of the Peace Apostolic Church, Inc. (the “Church”). Plaintiffs allege that after the death of the Church’s pastor, the Church’s de facto officers or directors, Tamara Swancy-Prince (“Prince”) and Priscilla Woods Brown (“Brown”),  improperly spent church funds and engaged in other misconduct. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants refuse to permit Plaintiffs to inspect corporate records. Plaintiffs allege 13 causes of action for declaratory relief, to enforce their rights to inspect corporate records, breach of fiduciary duty, conversion, fraud, and related claims.

       On November 7, 2023, the Hon. Kelvin Filer, granted Plaintiffs’ ex parte application to specially set this motion on shortened notice.

II.      DISCUSSION

       Defendants have not cited any authority for the contention that the date for the hearing is “beyond motion cutoff.” Applications to appear pro hac vice must be filed and served on all parties including the California State Bar pursuant to Civil Procedure § 1005, i.e., on 16 court days’ notice. (Cal. Rules of Court, 9.40 subd. (c) (1).) However, the Court can prescribe a shorter period. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005 subd. (b).)

       The Verified Ex Parte Application filed on November 6, 2023, was served on the State Bar. The applicant, Mr. Oberg, provides a declaration that meets the requirements of Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40: he lives in Virgina, he is not a California resident, he discloses where he has been admitted to practice, he has not been suspended or disbarred in any Court, has not applied pro hac vice in the past two years in a California action, and he identifies local counsel, Matthew B. Learned, counsel for Plaintiffs.  (Cal Rules of Court, rule 9.40 subd. (d).)

       Plaintiffs’ counsel received confirmation from the State Bar that Mr. Oberg’s application was filed and approved. (Reply, Ex. 1.) Plaintiff’s counsel submitted the $50.00 application fee. (Learned decl., filed 11/6/23 with Verified Ex Parte application.)

       Defendants have not cited any authority requiring Plaintiffs to explain the need for additional counsel. Counsel’s eligibility to appear pro hac vice is governed by the California Rules of Court, which does not require a showing of need. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)

       Based on the foregoing, the Application is GRANTED.