Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case Number: 23TRCV03755, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 23TRCV03755, Date: 2024-09-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23TRCV03755 Hearing Date: September 23, 2024 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: September 23, 2024

CASE NUMBER: 23TRCV03755

CASE NAME: Haynes, et al. v. General Motors LLC

MOVING PARTY: Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Patrick Haynes, et al.

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendant, General Motors LLC, et al. (No Opposition)

TRIAL DATE: None

MOTION:¿ (1) Application for Eric D. Pearson to appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice

Tentative Rulings: (1) GRANTED

I. BACKGROUND¿

A. Factual¿

This care arises out of the alleged failure to disclose and adequately repair a defective car batteries on the Chevrolet Bolt model vehicle. On November 9, 2023, Patrick Haynes, Julio Aquino, Ana Aquino, John Butterfield, Diana Wolfe, Jane Carlson, Stever Feighner, Yvonne Carter, Idilio Ceniceros, John Daniher, Frank Destra, Mark Fetzer, Joseph Finn, Leticia Finn, Graham Gardner, John Godard, Jeff Goldberg, Richard Goldstein, Tony Hardy, Peter Hedrick, Rebecca Hedrick, Stanley Johnson, Deborah Kirsch, Nathan Kluth, Yuh-Yun Liao, Clive Cheung, Dean Martinson, Kenneth Mayle, Daniel Messisco, Joanna Parypinski, Jane Ratchye, Charles Rubin, Gerarda Soria, Eric Sturtevant, Benjamin Terry, Lorne Thompson, Lori Thompson, and Donald Weinger (collectively, Plaintiffs) filed a complaint against General Motors, LLC, Allen Gwynn Chevrolet, Inc., and Does 1-100 (collectively, Defendants). The complaint alleges causes of actions for: (1) violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) – Civil Code section 1750, (2) breach of express warranty – Commercial Code sections 2313 and 10210, (3) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability – Commercial Code sections 2314 an d 10212, (4) violations of the Song-Beverly Act – breach of express warranty – Civil Code sections 1791.2 and 1793.2(D), and (5) violations of the Song-Beverly Act – breach of the implied warranty of merchantability – Civil Code sections 1792 and 1791.1. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants failed to disclose and adequately repair a defective battery in their Chevrolet Bolt vehicles, leading to the battery overheating and resulting in fires.

Counsel for Plaintiff now files a Motion to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice in this matter.

B. Procedural

On August 21, 2024, Plaintiffs’ attorneys submitted an Application for Eric D. Pearson 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. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40 (a).) Further, under 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 Eric D. Pearson is admitted to practice in good standing before at least one U.S. Court. (Pearson Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff’s attorneys have also included the dates of admission. (Pearson Decl., ¶ 2.) Plaintiff also notes that Pearson is associated with an attorney of record who is a member of the California Bar. (Pearson Decl., ¶ 6; Miller Decl., ¶ 1.) Further, the moving papers affirm that Pearson has noticed the California State Bar along with paying the associated $50 State Bar fee. (Application of Eric D. Pearson, Exh. A.) Plaintiff’s attorneys also included the titles of the courts and causes, dates, and grants for his applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the last two years. (Pearson Decl., ¶ 5.) Lastly, Pearson has provided both his office address and resident address. (Pearson Decl., ¶ 1.) Because Counsel for Plaintiff has met the requirements, the Court grants this motion.

III. CONCLUSION

¿ For the foregoing reasons, Attorney for Plaintiffs’ Motion for Approval of Eric D. Pearson to Appear as Counsel Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.

¿¿

Moving party is ordered to give notice.