Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV10828, Date: 2023-04-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV10828 Hearing Date: April 12, 2023 Dept: 50
|
john a. carr, Plaintiff, vs. lucy m. johnson, et al., Defendants. |
Case No.: |
20STCV10828 |
|
Hearing Date: |
April 12, 2023 |
|
|
Hearing Time: |
10:00 a.m. |
|
|
[TENTATIVE]
ORDER RE: MOTION FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE |
||
Charles
M. Geisler (“Movant”) moves for admission pro hac vice to appear on behalf of Rose
M. Carr and Patrick E. Carr, co-executors for the Estate of John A. Carr
The Court notes a number of defects with the motion.
First, pursuant to California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40, subdivision
(c)(1), “[a] person desiring to appear as counsel pro hac vice in a superior court must file
with the court a verified application together with proof of service by mail in
accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a of a copy of
the application and of the notice of hearing of the application on all parties
who have appeared in the cause and on the State Bar of California at its San
Francisco office...” Movant’s motion is not
verified and no declaration(s) were submitted under penalty of perjury. In
addition, the proof of service attached the motion does not indicate that the
parties were served by mail or that the motion was served on the State Bar of California.
Second, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40,
subdivision (a)(1)-(3), no person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac
vice if the person is a resident
of the State of California; regularly employed
in the State of California; or regularly engaged in substantial business,
professional, or other activities in the State of California. Movant has failed
to set forth facts establishing that none of these circumstances apply to him.
Third, pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 9.40, subdivision (d)(2)-(4), the application must state, “(2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice
and the dates of admission; (3) That the applicant is a
licensee in good standing in those courts; [and] (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any
court…” Movant states that he is “currently licensed by the State Bar of Arizona in good
standing,” but fails to set forth the information required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subdivision
(d)(2)-(4).
Fourth, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40,
subdivision (d)(5), the application must state, “[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…” Movant states
that “[t]he
Applicant has not previously been admitted pro hac vice for any other case in the State of California,” but does not indicate
whether he filed any 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.
Lastly, pursuant to California Rules of
Court, rule 9.40, subdivision (e), “[a]n applicant for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule must pay a
reasonable fee not exceeding $50 to the State Bar of California with the copy
of the application and the notice of hearing that is served on the State Bar.”
Movant has not provided any proof that such fee was paid.
Based on the foregoing, Movant’s application
is denied without prejudice. Movant is ordered to give notice of this
ruling.
DATED:
________________________________
Hon. Teresa A.
Beaudet
Judge, Los
Angeles Superior Court