Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 20STCV48412, Date: 2023-04-05 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV48412    Hearing Date: April 5, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Defendants Uber Technologies, Inc., Rasier, LLC, and Rasier-CA, LLC (collectively, “Defendants”) seek an order permitting Angela K. Hall (“Hall”) and Jason M. Rauch (“Rauch”) to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action. 

On February 10, 2023, a stipulation to advance the hearings on the instant unopposed applications was signed and filed by the Court.  The applications were set for hearing for April 5, 2023. 

An out-of-state lawyer, not admitted to practice in California, may be admitted pro hac vice—i.e., to appear and take part in a particular action only. Applications for such admission are generally heard as law and motion matters.  (CRC Rule 9.40.)

To be eligible for admission pro hac vice: (1) the applicant must be admitted to practice before a U.S. court, or the highest court of any state or territory; (2) he or she must not be a California resident, nor regularly engaged in practice or other business here; and (3) a member of the California Bar must be associated as attorney of record in the case. (CRC Rule 9.40(a).) A verified application must be filed stating (1) the applicant's residence and office addresses; (2) the court or courts in which he or she is admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that he or she is currently in good standing in such courts; (4) that he or she has not been suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) the title and case number of any California action in which he or she has applied to appear pro hac vice during 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 who is attorney of record. (CRC Rule 9.40(d)—filing fee must accompany application.) 

Copies of the application must be served by mail upon all parties who have appeared in the action, and also upon the State Bar at its San Francisco office at least 16 court days before the hearing (notice governed by CCP § 1005).  A fee (currently $50) must be paid to the State Bar.  (CRC Rule 9.40.) 

In this case, Hall and Rauch each provide that they reside in Indiana.  Hall is admitted to practice in the state courts of Indiana and Illinois, and the United States District Courts of the Northern District of Indiana, Southern District of Indiana, and Northern District of Illinois.  Rauch is admitted to practice in the state courts of Indiana, the United States District Courts of the Northern District of Indiana, Southern District of Indiana, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.  Hall and Rauch are in good standing with the above-named courts and have not been suspended or disbarred in any court.  Hall and Rauch do not reside, are not regularly employed, and do not regularly engage in professional or other activities in California.  Within the past two years, Hall has been admitted to appear as pro hac vice counsel in two other cases, while Rauch has not applied for pro hac vice admission in California in the past 2 years.  A licensed California attorney, Josephine D. Far, is associated as counsel in this case.   

Defendants submit evidence showing payment has been made to the State Bar for Hall’s and Rauch’s applications.  However, the Court cannot locate proof of service showing the State Bar was given notice of the hearing date for the application.  Proof of service showing the State Bar was given notice of the hearing on the application is required.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)  Absent proof of service for the hearing, the applications cannot be granted. 

Therefore, the applications for Hall and Rauch to be admitted pro hac vice are denied without prejudice. 

Moving Defendants are ordered to give notice.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 5^th day of April 2023