Judge: Peter A. Hernandez, Case: 23PSCV01225, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23PSCV01225 Hearing Date: September 19, 2023 Dept: K
Defendant Davis Wire Corporation’s Application for
Admission Pro Hac Vice of Jeffrey E. Elkins is GRANTED.
Background
Plaintiff Deeanna Wagner (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows:
On February
14, 2023, Plaintiff was picking up some steel frames from Davis Wire
Corporation (“DWC”) in Irwindale, California. Doe Employee and Doe Manager
loaded six steel frames into Plaintiff’s truck trailer but left no room inside
the trailer to strap in the frames. Plaintiff asked Doe Employee and Doe
Manager to strap in the frames, but they refused to do so. When Plaintiff
subsequently attempted to strap in the frames herself she slipped, hit her head
on a steel frame and fell, sustaining injuries.
On April 25, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against DWC, Doe Employee, Doe Manager and Does 1-50 for:
1.
Negligence
2.
Negligent Hiring
A Case Management Conference is set for September 19, 2023.
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).)
DWC moves, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 9.40, for an order allowing the pro hac vice admission of Jeffrey E. Elkins.
The application complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 9.40; accordingly, the application is granted.