Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 22STCV25200, Date: 2024-09-18 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV25200 Hearing Date: September 18, 2024 Dept: 29
Bote v. Doordash, Inc.
22STCV25200
Application for Mel C. Orchard, III, Esq. to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Plaintiff
Tentative
The application is denied without prejudice.
Background
On August 4, 2022, Sandra Bote (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Doordash, Inc., Kenneth Vallone Taylor, and Does 1 through 50 for negligence arising out of an automobile accident occurring on December 9, 2020.
On August 29, 2022, Doordash, Inc. filed an answer. On December 1, 2022, Doordash, Inc. was dismissed.
On September 7, 2022, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Postmates, Inc. as Doe 1. Postmates, Inc. filed its answer on December 5, 2022.
On April 27, 2023, Kenneth Vallone Taylor filed an answer.
On August 21, 2024, Plaintiff filed the application for Mel C. Orchard, III, Esq. to be admitted Pro Hac Vice. No opposition has been filed.
The Court notes a second application for Noah W. Drew was filed on August 22 and is set to be heard on September 19.
Legal Standard
Any attorney licensed to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending a court of this State, but who is not a licensee of the California State Bar may apply to appear pro hac vice in this State by submitting his or her written application and mailing notice to all interested parties, as well as notice and a $50.00 application fee to the State Bar Association in San Francisco. (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 (a), (c), (e).) An applicant may neither reside nor work in California and may not perform regular or substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State. (Id. at Rule 9.40 (a).)
Discussion
The Court has reviewed the application of Mel C. Orchard, III, Esq., to be admitted pro hac vice and finds that not all of the requirements set forth in California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, are satisfied. In particular:
(1) Mr. Orchard states he has submitted one other application for pro hac vice, but does not provide “[t]he 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”. (Cal. Rule of Court, rule 9.40(d)(5).
(2) No proof of required $50 fee having been paid; Mr. Orchard states has been or will be submitted. (Orchard Decl., ¶ 12.)
Therefore, the Court DENIES without prejudice the application to be admitted pro hac vice.
Conclusion
Accordingly, the Court DENIES without prejudice the application of Mel C. Orchard, III, Esq. to be admitted pro hac vice.