Judge: Stephen P. Pfahler, Case: 23CHCV00300, Date: 2023-09-27 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 23CHCV00300 Hearing Date: September 28, 2023 Dept: F49
Dept.
F-49
Date:
9-28-23
Case
#23CHCV00300
Trial
Date: Not Set
PRO HAC VICE
MOVING
PARTY: Defendant/Cross-Complainant/Cross-Defendant, Markel American Insurance
Company
RESPONDING
PARTY: Unopposed/Facey Medical Group, et al.
RELIEF
REQUESTED
Motion
for Pro Hac Vice Admission
SUMMARY
OF ACTION
Plaintiff
Facey Medical Group (Facey) was named a defendant in multiple lawsuits
involving a former staff physician, Castillo (19STCV40434, 21STCV46466,
22STCV04812, 22STCV24928, and 22CHCV01215 ). Facey tendered claims for coverage
with its insurers, defendants Travelers and Markel.
On
February 2, 2023, Plaintiff filed a complaint for individual causes of action
of Declaratory Relief re: Duty to Defend, and Breach of Contract re: Duty to
Defend, as to both insurers. Both insurers denied coverage. Markel American
Insurance Company (Markel) answered the complaint on March 21, 2023. Defendant
Travelers Casualty Insurance Company (Travelers) answered the complaint on
March 22, 2023, and filed a cross-complaint against Face and Markel for
Declaratory Relief re: No Duty to from the Outset to Defend under Any of the
Travelers CGL Policies, Declaratory Relief re: No Duty to Indemnity and No
Prospective Duty to Defend, and Recoupment of Defense Fees and Costs. On May 8,
2023, Markel answered the Travelers cross-complaint and filed a cross-complaint
against Travelers, The Doctors Company, and Lexington Insurance Company for
Declaratory Judgment (four causes of action). On May 11, 2023, Facey answered
the Travelers cross-complaint. On June 22, 2023, Travelers answered the Markel
cross-complaint. On June 22, 2023, Lexington Insurance Company answered the
Markel cross-complaint. On July 10, 2023, The Doctors Company answered the
Market cross-complaint.
RULING: Granted
Defendants Markel American Insurance Company (Markel) moves
for pro hac vice admission of attorney Michael Delhagen.
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. The application shows a credit payment to the State Bar of California.
The application for pro hac vice admission is granted.
Case Management Conference set for November 1, 2023.
Markel to give notice.