Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 22CHCV00628, Date: 2023-02-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22CHCV00628    Hearing Date: February 10, 2023    Dept: F49

Dept. F-49

Date: 2-10-23

Case #22CHCV00628

Trial Date: N/A

PRO HAC VICE

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Jade Mendez

RESPONDING PARTY: Unopposed/Defendant, Falcon Pictures, et al.

RELIEF REQUESTED

Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission

SUMMARY OF ACTION

In August 2019, Plaintiff Jade Mendez began assisting with television production for Defenadnt Falco Pictures, et al. as an unpaid intern. Plaintiff was offered paid employment on a movie beginning in November 2019. Plaintiff alleges a series of comments on her appearance and uninvited physical contact.

On August 11, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint for Sex Discrimination/Sexual Harassment Hostile Work Environment, Sex Discrimination/Sexual Harassment Quid Pro Quo, Gender Discrimination, and Vicarious Liability/Respondeat Superior.

RULING: Granted

Plaintiff Jade Mendez moves for pro hac vice admission of attorney Lori Bullock.

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 first application for pro hac vice admission in the state of California within at least the last two years. Moving party represents proof of service the application on the State Bar of California, but confirmation of the $50 fee is not indicated. [Application, Ex. A.] The court assumes payment was made, however, at the time of the application.

The application for pro hac vice admission is granted.

Motion for Pro Hac Vice set for February 14, 2022.

The court will also refer the subject case to Department 1 for a potential transfer. (Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.3, subd. (b)(1-2).) The business and/or individual addresses of defendants range everywhere from Madera, California (a city in Madera County California, not Los Angeles County), Irvine, in Orange County, to City of Long Beach (Los Angeles County, but not Chatsworth district). Noticeably absent from any allegation in the complaint including the number of production items is any nexus with Chatsworth and therefore the basis for the filing of the motion in this court.

While the court agrees to address the pro hac vice admissions, the court will otherwise decline to consider any substantive challenges to the merits pending potential reassignment to a new district. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 395, subd. (a); Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.3, subd. (a)(1)(A).)

Plaintiff to give notice.