Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV00810, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV00810, Date: 2024-11-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV00810 Hearing Date: November 6, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: November 6, 2024¿

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV00810

CASE NAME: Janell Hendrickson v. Gerardo Castillo, et al.

MOVING PARTY: Attorneys for Defendant, Tesla, Inc. (erroneously sued as Tesla Motors, Inc.)

RESPONDING PARTY: Plaintiff, Janell Hendrickson, Individually and as Successor-in-Interest to Steven Michael Hendrickson, and as the Natural Mother and Legal Guardian of her Minor Children, J.H. and K.H. (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: Not Set.

MOTION:¿ (1) Application for Clay A. Cossé to appear Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff, Janell Hendrickson, individually and as successor-in-interest to Steven Michael Hendrickson, and as the Natural Mother and Legal Guardian of her minor children, J.H. and K.H. (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants, Gerardo Castillo, and individual, M.H. Transport, L.L.C., a domestic limited liability company, Tesla Motors, Inc., a foreign corporation, and DOES 1 through 50. On May 8, 2024, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) alleging causes of action for: (1) Strict Product Liability and Wrongful Death; (2) Negligence and Wrongful Death; (3) Negligence and Wrongful Death; (4) Breach of Warranty and Wrongful Death; (5) Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability and Wrongful Death; (6) Breach of Express Warranty and Wrongful Death; (7) Intentional Misrepresentation and Wrongful Death; (8) Common Law Fraudulent Concealment and Wrongful Death; (9) Negligence and Wrongful Death; (10) Negligence and Wrongful Death; and (11) Negligent Hiring, Training, Retention & Supervision.

Now, Attorneys for Defendant, Tesla, Inc. (erroneously sued as Tesla Motors, Inc.) (“Tesla”) files a Motion for Order Allowing Out-of-State Attorney, Clay A. Cossé, to appear pro hac vice.

B. Procedural

On September 5, 2024, Attorneys for Defendant, Tesla, submitted an Application for Clay A. Cossé, to appear pro hac vice. 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 Attorneys for Tesla have sufficiently shown that Clay A. Cossé is admitted to practice in good standing before at least one U.S. Court. (Declaration of Clay A. Cossé (“Cossé Decl.”), ¶ 3.) Tesla’s attorneys have also included the dates of admission. (Cossé Decl., ¶ 3.) The moving papers indicate that Cossé is associated with an attorney of record who is a member of the California Bar. (Cossé Decl., ¶ 6; Declaration of Dmitriy Kopelevich (“Kopelevich Decl.”), ¶ 2.) Further, Cossé has noticed the California State Bar along with paying the associated $50 State Bar fee. (Kopelevich Decl., ¶ 3.) Lastly, Cossé has provided both his office address, and resident address. (Cossé Decl., ¶¶ 1-2.) Because Counsel for Tesla have met the requirements, the Court grants the instant motion.

III. CONCLUSION

¿ For the foregoing reasons, Attorney for Tesla’s Motion for Approval of Clay A. Cossé to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice.