Judge: Stephen Morgan, Case: 20AVCV00345, Date: 2023-01-17 Tentative Ruling

                                                                           Department A14 Tentative Rulings 

If parties are satisfied with the tentative ruling, parties may submit by emailing the courtroom at ATPDeptA14@LACOURT.ORG. 

If a matter is also scheduled for a CMC, TSC, OSC, etc., an appearance is still required even if the parties are willing to submit on the tentative ruling.

Case Number: 20AVCV00345    Hearing Date: January 17, 2023    Dept: A14

Background

This¿action arises from an automobile collision.¿ On or about November 14, 2019, at approximately 12:26 p.m.,¿Plaintiff Brenna¿Romines¿(“Plaintiff”) was travelling northbound on 60th Street West in Lancaster, CA in her 2001 Jeep Cherokee (the “Subject Vehicle”), when she entered the intersection with Avenue F (the “Accident Location”).¿ At the same time, non-party Kaitlynn Renee Houghton (“Houghton”) was travelling westbound on Avenue F when she entered the intersection without stopping at her stop sign due to a dangerous condition on the roadway, causing the Subject Vehicle to broadside Houghton’s vehicle.¿ (Complaint, at ¶ 1.)¿ The Subject Vehicle overturned and collided with a wooden electrical pole, causing the pole to collapse, on the northwest corner, before coming to rest on the adjacent dirt field.¿ 

¿  

The operative pleading is the Third Amended Complaint (“TAC”), filed on October 27, 2021, alleging three (3) causes of action for (1) Dangerous Condition of Public Property (against Lancaster), (2) Strict Liability (against FCA and Defendant Johnson Controls, Inc. (“JCI”)), and (3) Negligence (against FCA and JCI). JCI is another manufacturer of the Subject Vehicle.  

On November 29, 2021, FCA filed its Answer.

On November 30, 2021, JCI filed its Answer.

On November 30, 2021, Lancaster filed a Demurrer to the TAC, overruled on January 06, 2022.

On January 20, 2022, Lancaster filed its Answer.

On April 26, 2022, Plaintiff amended the fictitious/incorrect name of Doe 2 to Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLC (“FAS”).

On December 21, 2022, FAS filed this Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice.

No Opposition has been filed. “All papers opposing a motion so noticed shall be filed with the court and a copy served on each party at least nine court days. . .before the hearing.” (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 1005(b).) The hearing on this matter is set for January 17, 2023. As such, an Opposition was due no later than January 03, 2023. Should an Opposition be filed, it is now untimely.

-----

Analysis

Standard for Pro Hac Vice Application – An attorney who is a member in good standing of the bar of another state, who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending before a court of this state may, “in the discretion of such court” be permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) No person is eligible to appear pro hac vice if the person is a California resident, regularly employed in California, or regularly engaged in substantial business in California. (Ibid.)  

The attorney seeking to appear pro hac vice must then file an application with the Court indicating: 

(1) the applicant's residence and office address; 

(2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; 

(3) that the applicant is a licensee 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 licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record. 

(Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(d).) 

Lastly, in addition to serving the application and notice of hearing on the State Bar (see Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 9.40(c)), the applicant must remit an application fee to the State Bar. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40(e).) 

-----

Discussion

Application – Deborah J. Bullion (“Bullion”) has filed an application with a declaration that includes her residence address, office address, courts to which she has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission, a statement that she is in good standing in the aforementioned courts, a statement that she has never been disbarred or suspended in the aforementioned courts, and a statement that she is neither regularly employed nor regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. (Decl. Bullion ¶¶ 1-5.) Bullion states that in the last two years, she has not appeared as counsel pro hac vice in California. (Id. at ¶ 7.) Finally, Bullion lists the name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record:

Douglas W. Robinson

1900 Main Street, Suite 700,

Irvine, California 92614

(949) 851-9400.

The application includes a declaration from Douglas W. Robinson (“Robinson”) in which he states that he supports Bullion’s application and will remit the sum of $50.00 to the State Bar of California as required by California Rule of Court 9.40(e) upon filing this application.

The Court GRANTS the application. The Court emphasizes that not only does an application fee need to be remitted to the State Bar of California, but also the application and notice of hearing must have been served on the State Bar.

-----

Conclusion