Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 19STCV40257, Date: 2022-08-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV40257    Hearing Date: August 23, 2022    Dept: O

Defendants Toyota Motor North America, Inc.’s, Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc.’s, Toyota Motor Corporation’s and DWWTR, Inc. dba Toyota of Riverside’s Motion to Admit Kurt Kern as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

Background   

Plaintiffs Alena Reyes-Greendale (“Reyes-Greendale”), Jessica Rosemary Barksdale (“Barksdale”), and Edith Flores and Rene Flores, individually and as the Successors-in-Interest to the Estate of Alexis Chantel Flores (“Flores”) (“collectively, “Plaintiffs”) allege as follows:

On or about January 14, 2018, Barksdale was driving a 1998 Toyota 4Runner, Vehicle Identification No. JT3GN86R7W0079510 (“subject vehicle”) westbound on the SR-60 Pomona Freeway in Diamond Bar; Reyes-Greendale and Flores were passengers. The subject vehicle was involved in a rollover crash, which injured Reyes-Greendale and Barksdale and killed Flores.

On November 7, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants Toyota Motor Corporation (“TMC”), Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. (“Toyota Motor Sales”), Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc. (“TME&M North America”), Toyota Motor North America, Inc. (“Toyota North America”), Toyota Motor Manufacturing, California, Inc. (“TMM California”), DWWTR, Inc. dba Toyota of Riverside (sued separately as “DWWTR, Inc. and “Toyota of Riverside”) (“DWWTR”) and Does 1-100 for:

1.                  Strict Products Liability

2.                  Negligent Product Liability

3.                  Negligence

4.                  Breach of Warranty

5.                  Negligent Failure to Recall

6.                  Fraudulent Concealment

7.                  Violation of California’s False Advertising Law

8.                  Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law

9.                  Fraud

10.              Wrongful Death

11.              Survival Action

On January 14, 2020, Plaintiffs dismissed TMM California, without prejudice.

On March 3, 2021, this case was transferred from Department 32 of the Personal Injury Court to this instant department.

On July 6, 2021, Plaintiffs dismissed TME&M North America, without prejudice.

The Final Status Conference is set for October 18, 2022. Trial is set for November 1, 2022.

Legal Standard

“A person who is not a licensee of the State Bar of California but who is an attorney 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 licensee of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record. No person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule 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 (“CRC”), rule 9.40, subd. (a).)

“A person 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. The 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.” (CRC rule 9.40, subd. (c)(1).)

“The application 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, subd. (d).)

“An applicant for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule 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. . .” (CRC rule 9.40, subd. (e).)

Discussion

Toyota North America, Toyota Motor Sales, TMC and DWWTR move, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 9.40, for an order allowing the pro hac vice admission of Kurt Kern.

The application complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 9.40; accordingly, the application is granted.