Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23CMCV00815, Date: 2023-12-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23CMCV00815    Hearing Date: December 6, 2023    Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling 

¿ 

HEARING DATE:                 December 6, 2023¿ 

¿ 

CASE NUMBER:                  23CMCV00815

¿ 

CASE NAME:                        Estate of Anthony Allen Lee, et al. (Langston) v. Major Surplus & Survival, Inc., et al.  

¿ 

MOVING PARTY:                Attorneys for Plaintiffs

 

RESPONDING PARTY:       None.   

¿ 

TRIAL DATE:                        Not Set.

¿ 

MOTION:¿                              (1) Application for Joseph E. Ritch to appear Counsel Pro Hac Vice 

 

Tentative Rulings:                  (1) GRANTED, although the moving papers do not indicate the dates Mr. Ritch he was admitted to practice before his various prior court admissions as technically required in California per Rule of Court 9.40

 

 

I. BACKGROUND¿ 

¿ 

A.    Factual¿ 

 

On June 2, 2023, Plaintiffs, Estate of Anthony Allen Lee Langston, deceased, by and through its successor in interest Jennifer Langston, Jennifer Langston, an individual, Lucian Langston, by and through her Guardian ad Litem, and Grace Contreras Cuellar filed a complaint against Defendant, Major Surplus & Survival, Inc. dba I&I Sports Supply, Inc., and DOES 1 through 100. On August 16, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Strict Product Liability; (2) Negligence; (3) Failure to Warn; (4) Wrongful Death pursuant to CCP § 377.60; (5) Survival Action pursuant to CCP § 377.20; and (6) Violation of California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq..

 

Counsel for Plaintiffs now files a Motion to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice of Joseph E. Ritch.

 

B. Procedural

 

On November 7, 2023, Attorneys for Plaintiffs submitted an Application for Joseph E. Ritch to be admitted as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiffs. To date, no opposition has been filed.

 

¿II. ANALYSIS ¿ 

¿ 

A.    Legal Standard

 

To be eligible for admission pro hac vice, the applicant must be admitted to practice before a U.S. court or the highest court of any state or territory, must not be a California resident, must be associated with a member of the California bar, must have noticed the California State Bar in San Francisco at least 21 calendar days before the hearing, and must have paid $50.00 to the State Bar. Further, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 the moving papers must state: (1) The applicant's residence and office address; (2) The courts to which he has been admitted to practice and the dates of such admission; (3) That the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) The title of the court and cause in which he has filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years, the date of such application and whether or not it was granted; and (6) The name, address and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.

 

B.     Discussion

 

On review of the moving papers, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently shown that for Joseph E. Ritch is admitted to practice in Texas since 2002 and in good standing before at least one U.S. court (Ritch Decl., ¶ 2), is associated with an attorney of record who is a member of the California bar (Ritch Decl., ¶ 6); that he has noticed the California State Bar along with the associated $50 State Bar fee; and has provided both his office address, and his resident address. (Ritch Decl., ¶ 1.)  His declaration indicates admission before the courts of both Georgia and Louisiana but does not state the dates for those admissions nor for his admission to the Southern District of Texas.  Judging from this Court’s own admission in Texas and nearly immediate admission to the local federal district in Texas in 1982, the Court will assume Mr. Ritch was admitted to the Southern District of Texas in or shortly after 2002. 

 

Because Counsel for Plaintiffs have substantially complied with these requirements, the Court grants the instant motion. 

 

III. CONCLUSION 

 

¿ For the foregoing reasons, Attorney for Plaintiffs’, Joseph E. Ritch, Esq.’s Motion for Approval to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

¿¿ 

Moving party is ordered to give notice.