Judge: Serena R. Murillo, Case: 20STCV39045, Date: 2023-05-19 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV39045    Hearing Date: May 19, 2023    Dept: 31

TENTATIVE

Defendants’ Application to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice of Matthew D. Ridings is DENIED.

Legal Standard

California Rule of Court, rule 9.40 provides that an attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California by filing a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, with payment of a $50.00 fee, so long as that attorney is not a resident of the State of California, and is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. 

The application must state: (1) the applicant’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of 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 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 member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action.  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).) 

Discussion

Defendants submitted Matthew D. Riding’s verified application together with Declarations of Matthew D. Ridings and Pooya E. Sohi. Matthew D. Ridings resides outside of California, in Ohio. Defendant’s application is DENIED after finding the following.  

The application includes proof of payment of the $50.00 fee under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e). (Sohi Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. A.) Also, the application includes the required information under Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d). (Ridings Decl.) However, the application’s proof of service does not comply with Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1) because it does not show that the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office was served a copy of the application and notice of hearing. 

Accordingly, the application is DENIED.  

Conclusion

Defendants’ Application to Admit Counsel Pro Hac Vice of Matthew D. Ridings is DENIED without prejudice.