Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV10828, Date: 2023-05-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10828    Hearing Date: May 15, 2023    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Charles M. Geisler (“Movant”) applies 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 that Movant has corrected some defects identified by the Court in Movant’s prior motion[1], but certain defects still remain in the instant motion.

First, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subdivision (a)(1)-(3), “[n]o person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule if the person is: (1) A resident of the State of California; (2) Regularly employed in the State of California; or (3) Regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.” Movant states that he is “not regularly engaged in substantial business or professional activities in the State of California.” (Application, ¶ 1.) However, Movant does not indicate that he is not regularly engaged in “other activities in the State of California.”

Second, 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,” (App., ¶ 2) but still fails to set forth the information required by California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subdivision (d)(2)-(4). 

Third, 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,” (App, ¶ 3) but still 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 still 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:  May 15, 2023                    

                                                                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court