Judge Randolph M. Hammock, Case Number: 20STCV39030, Date: 2024-11-18 Tentative Ruling

Plaintiff Corey J. Devine brings this PAGA action for unpaid wages and related claims individually and on behalf of all other aggrieved employees of Defendant Capstone Logistics, LLC.

On January 19, 2023, this court granted Defendant’s motion to compel arbitration as to Plaintiff’s individual PAGA claim, and stayed that portion of the case pending binding arbitration. The court deferred its ruling on the issue of dismissal of Plaintiff’s remaining representative claim pending the California Supreme Court’s ruling in Adolph v. Uber Technologies.

Jennifer A. Riley and Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., now move to be admitted pro hac vice as counsel for Defendant Capstone Logistics, LLC. No opposition was filed.

Counsels’ Motions to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice are DENIED unless counsel can demonstrate “special circumstances” at the hearing justifying their “repeat appearances” in California. (See Cal. Rule of Court, Rule 9.40(b).)

California Rules of Court Rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State by way of written application upon notice by mail to all interested parties, as well as service on the State Bar in San Francisco with payment of a $50.00 fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of California, does not work in California, and does not perform regular or substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40).

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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)).

Based on the Application and attached Declaration, Counsel Jennifer A. Riley is not employed or residing within California (Riley Decl. ¶ 1, 4); the application contains the necessary addresses (id.); the application has the proper admission information for other courts where the attorney is admitted (id. ¶ 2); and the attorney is in good standing in those jurisdictions. (Id.)

Counsel Riley is to be associated with local counsel James S. Brown. (Id. ¶ 3). Counsel Brown confirms payment of the mandatory application fee to the State Bar on Counsel Riley’s behalf. (Brown Decl. ¶ 7.)

Notably, in the previous two years, Counsel Riley has appeared pro hac vice in California state or federal courts in eighteen (18) different matters. (Id. ¶ 5.) Rule of Court 9.40 does not set a limit on the number of appearances an out of state attorney can make in California. However, “[a]bsent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.” (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(b).)

The extent of counsel’s “repeated appearances” in California gives this court pause. Without more information on the matters in which counsel previously appeared, this court is inclined to deny the application. At the hearing, counsel must demonstrate what “special circumstances” exist justifying another appearance in California. If counsel cannot, the application may be denied.

Based on the Application and attached Declaration, Counsel Gerald L. Maatman, Jr., is not employed or residing within California (Maatman Decl. ¶ 1, 4); the application contains the necessary addresses (id.); the application has the proper admission information for other courts where the attorney is admitted (id. ¶ 2); and the attorney is in good standing in those jurisdictions. (Id.)

Counsel Maatman is to be associated with local counsel James S. Brown. (Id. ¶ 3). Counsel Brown confirms payment of the mandatory application fee to the State Bar on Counsel Maatman’s behalf. (Brown Decl. ¶ 7.)

In the previous two years, Counsel Maatman has appeared pro hac vice in California state or federal courts in twenty-one (21) different matters, and filed applications in two others. (Id. ¶ 5.) Again, these “repeated appearances” are a cause for denial of the application, and the court is inclined to do so. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(b).) To be admitted, counsel must demonstrate special circumstances at the hearing that justify another appearance in California. If counsel cannot, the application may be denied.

Last, but not least, at the recent hearing of 9/4/24, this Court was advised that the binding arbitration was “completed.” A current Status Conference has been set for 3/3/25 at 8:30 a.m.

To date no party has filed a motion or petition to confirm or set aside any arbitration ruling. The PAGA claim remains stayed, pending further order. It is unclear to this Court as to why attorneys Riley and Maatman need to be involved in this case, at this time. The Defendant’s law firm of Duane Morris appears to have more than sufficient lawyers licensed in California to adequately represent it.

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept49@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.