Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00377, Date: 2022-09-02 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22CHCV00377 Hearing Date: September 2, 2022 Dept: F49
Dept.
F-49
Date:
9-2-22
Case
#22CHCV00377
Trial
Date: N/A
PRO HAC VICE
MOVING
PARTY: Defendant, William Corbett, et al.
RESPONDING
PARTY: Unopposed/Plaintiff, Jan Minkovich
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
for Pro Hac Vice Admission
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
On
January 21, 2020, Plaintiff Jan Minkovich executed a written Executive
Employment Agreement, whereby Plaintiff was to be employed as Senior Vice
President of Operations and Acquisitions from January 1, 2020 through December
31, 2023 for Defendant Innovative Payment Solutions, Inc. On December 18, 2020,
Plaintiff alleges termination of employment by Defendant William Corbet and
Innovative Payment Solutions, Inc.
On
May 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Breach of Contract, Nonpayment of
Wages, Waiting Time Penalties, Failure to Indemnify Expenses, Violation of
Business and Professions Code section 17200, and Wrongful Termination in
Violation of Public Policy.
RULING: Granted
Defendants William Corbett and Innovative Payment Solutions,
Inc. moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Paul Rooney.
Pro hac vice admission in California is governed by
California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40. To
be admitted pro hac vice, one must be “a member in
good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States
court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of
the United States.” (California
Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) However,
in no case shall an attorney appear pro hac vice if the attorney is a resident
of California, regularly employed in California, or “regularly
engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State
of California.”
An attorney seeking pro hac vice
admission must file a verified application in both court and the State Bar of
California establishing:
(1) [t]he applicant's residence and office address; (2)[t]he courts to which the applicant has been admitted to
practice and the dates of admission; (3)[t]hat the applicant is a member in good standing in those
courts; (4)[t]hat the applicant is not currently suspended or
disbarred in any court; (5)[t]he 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; and (6)[t]he name, address, and telephone number of the active
member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.
(California
Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)
The application complies with California Rules of Court,
Rule 9.40. The subject application constitutes the third application for pro
hac vice admission in the state of California. The court finds the prior number
of applications does not constitute repeated appearances, and therefore a basis
for denial of the application under rule 9.140(b). (See Golba v. Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251,
1258.) Moving party represents proof of service the application on the
State Bar of California, and as well as payment of the $50 fee. [Declaration of
Owen Weaver.] The court accepts the representation of counsel.
The application for pro hac vice admission is granted.
Demurrer and motion to compel arbitration set for October 4
and November 8, 2022, respectively.
Plaintiff to give notice.