Judge: Steven A. Ellis, Case: 23STCV02365, Date: 2025-05-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV02365    Hearing Date: May 7, 2025    Dept: 29

Saturne v. Lyft, Inc.
23STCV02365
Application to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice filed by Plaintiff Ozz Saturne

Tentative

The application is granted.

Background

On February 2, 2023, Ozz Saturne (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), Sasan Nassimizadeh, and Does 1 through 100 for negligence and negligence per se arising out of a vehicle accident on April 1, 2021, at or near the intersection of 37th Place and Figueroa Boulevard in Los Angeles.

On March 20, 2023, Plaintiff amended the complaint to name Babak Nassimizadeh as Doe 1.

On March 30, 2023, Lyft filed an answer.

On May 3, 2023, Babak Nassimizadeh filed an answer.

On April 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed this application for Kimball Jones to appear as counsel pro hac vice. Lyft filed an opposition on April 25, and Babak Nassimizadeh filed a joinder to Lyft’s opposition on April 30.  Plaintiff filed a reply on April 30.

On April 16, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiff’s ex parte application seeking this same relief.  The Court called the matter and heard from counsel.  The Court denied the application without prejudice, based on the failure to show sufficient grounds for the application to be determined on an ex parte basis. 

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 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., rule 9.40 (a).) 

Discussion

Plaintiff has requested that the applicant, Kimball Jones, Esq., join existing counsel Maro Burunsuzyan, Esq., to represent Plaintiff in this matter.  (Burunsuzyan Decl., ¶ 3.)  Proper notice has been given to the State Bar, and all required fees have been paid.  (Id., ¶ 5.) 

Lyft opposes the application, making three arguments.

First, Lyft argues that the application was not properly served on the State Bar.  The declaration of Plaintiff’s counsel is to the contrary and is credited by the Court.  (See id., ¶ 3.)

Second, Lyft argues that with three pro hac vice admissions since January 2024, Mr. Jones has surpassed the threshold for “repeated appearances” under California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(b).  There is, however, no specific limit on the number of permissible pro hac vice appearances.  The Court has reviewed the information presented in this record and concludes that Mr. Jones has not made a sufficient number of appearances for denial of the application under rule 9.40(b).  Of course, if Mr. Jones continues to practice in the courts of this State, at some point – and perhaps at some point soon – Mr. Jones may have to apply for regular admission to the bar.

Third, Lyft argues that Mr. Jones has not provided sufficient information to the Court to comply with the requirements of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).  The Court has reviewed all of the information in the record and finds that it is adequate.

Mr. Jones has complied with all substantive and procedural requirements.  The application is granted.

Conclusion

The Court GRANTS the application of Kimball Jones, Esq., to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Plaintiff in this matter.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.