Judge: Stephanie M. Bowick, Case: 24STCV102777, Date: 2025-03-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV102777    Hearing Date: March 13, 2025    Dept: 19

3/13/2025

Dept. 19

Hon. Rolf Treu, Judge presiding

HEALTHCARE JUSTICE COALITION CA CORP. v. AETNA, INC.; AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; AETNA HEALTH & LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; MERITAN HEALTH, INC. (24STCV10277) 

 

Counsel for Defendants/applicant parties: Defendants AETNA, INC., AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC., AETNA HEALTH AND LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, and MERITAIN HEALTH, INC. (ALSTON & BIRD LLP)

 

Counsel for Defendant/opposing party: None.

 

 

VERIFIED APPLICATION OF KELSEY L. KINGSBERY TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR AETNA DEFENDANTS (filed 2/13/2025)

VERIFIED APPLICATION OF DAVID B. CARPENTER TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE FOR AETNA DEFENDANTS (filed 2/13/2025)

 

 

TENTATIVE RULING 

 

Both of Defendants’ applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice are GRANTED.

 

 

I. BACKGROUND

 

On April 24, 2024, plaintiff HEALTHCARE JUSTICE COALITION CA CORP. (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendants AETNA, INC.; AETNA HEALTH OF CALIFORNIA, INC.; AETNA HEALTH & LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; AETNA LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY; and MERITAN HEALTH, INC. (“Defendants”).  

 

Plaintiff is asserting the following causes of action: 

 

1.  BREACH OF IMPLIED CONTRACT;

 2. OPEN BOOK ACCOUNT; and 

3.  UNFAIR COMPETITION (BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.)

 The Complaint alleges the following: “Defendants … must now … pay HEALTHCARE JUSTICE for emergency services based upon the reasonable value of the emergency services provided by the Providers, which value may be as much as the full billed charges for those services. See, e.g., Health & Safety Code §§ 1262.8, 1371, 1371.35, 1371.4, and California Code of Regulations, tit. 28, § 1300.71(a)(3)(B).” (Complaint, ¶9.) 

 

  

A.    The Arguments

 

On February 13, 2025, Defendants along with two applicants, from North Carolina and Georgia, filed applications to appear pro hac vice, arguing the following:

 

·         Both applicants meet all of the requirements for admission pro hac vice, pursuant to California Rule of Court, Rule 9.40.

·         The required content of that rule is set forth in the declarations attached to the applications.

 

 

II. ANALYSIS

 

The following rule elements apply:

  1. The applicant is not a member of the State Bar of California. (Cal. Rules of Court (CRC), rule 9.40(a).)
  2. The applicant is in good standing of the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory or insular possession of the United States. (Id.)
  3. The applicant has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state. (Id.)
  4. An active member of the State Bar of California is to be associated as attorney of record. (Id.)
  5. The applicant is not a resident of the State of California. (Id. at 9.40(a).)
  6. The applicant is not regularly employed in the State of California. (Id.)
  7. The applicant is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. (Id.)
  8. The applicant has not made repeated appearances pursuant to CRC rule 9.40. (Id. at 9.40(b).)
  9. Any special circumstances for repeated appearances pursuant to CRC rule 9.40. (Id.)
  10. The application is verified. (Id. at 9.40(c)(1).)
  11. The application is accompanied by a proof of service by mail in accordance with section 1013a of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Id.)
  12. The application is accompanied by a proof of service of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application upon all parties who have appeared in the cause. (Code Civ. Proc., §1014;  Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1).)
  13. The application is accompanied by a proof of service of a copy of the application and of the notice of hearing of the application upon the State Bar of California at San Francisco. (Id.)
  14. Notice of hearing has been given at the time prescribed in section 1005 of the Code of Civil Procedure. (Id.)
  15. The application was served in a shorter period for notice the court prescribed. (Id.)
  16. The application states the applicant's residence and office address. (Id. at 9.40(d)(1).)
  17. The application states the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission. (Id. at 9.40(d)(2).)
  18. The application states that the applicant is a member in good standing in the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice. (Id. at 9.40(d)(3).)
  19. The application states that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court. (Id. at 9.40(d)(4).)
  20. The application states the title of 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. (Id. at 9.40(d)(5).)
  21. The application states the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record. (Id. at 9.40(d)(6).)
  22. The application shows a $50 fee served upon the State Bar of California. (Id. at 9.40(e).)
  23. The applicant is qualified to appear pro hac vice. (Magee v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 949, 953-54 [a criminal case arguably analogous to civil].)
  24. The applicant is ready to appear pro hac vice. (Id.)
  25. The applicant's appearance would not cause a significant disruption of orderly justice. (Id.)

Here, the Court finds that the applications sufficiently comply with California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, including each applicant’s declaration addressing the rule elements.

Additionally, no reason appears to deny the application, including because of the absence of any opposition.

 

III. DISPOSITION 

 

Both of Defendants’ applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice are GRANTED.