Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 21STCV18852, Date: 2024-11-20 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV18852    Hearing Date: November 20, 2024    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Plaintiff Russell Simmons (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order admitting Daniel Derby to appear as counsel Pro Hac Vice for Plaintiff in this action.

The Court notes two defects with the application.

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. The notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period.”

Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b), “[u]nless otherwise ordered or specifically provided by law, all moving and supporting papers shall be served and filed at least 16 court days before the hearing.” Sixteen court days prior to the November 20, 2024 hearing is October 28, 2024. Plaintiff’s application was filed after this date, on October 29, 2024.[1] In addition, the proof of service attached to the application indicates that the application was served via email and electronic service on October 29, 2024. Under ¿Code of Civil Procedure section 1010.6, subdivision (a)(3)(B)¿, “[a]ny¿period of notice, or any right or duty to do any act or make any response within any period or on a date certain after the service of the document, which time period or date is prescribed by statute or rule of court, shall be extended after service by electronic means by two court days…” Eighteen court days before the November 20, 2024 hearing is October 24, 2024.

Second, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subdivision (a)(2), no person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice if the person is “[r]egularly employed in the State of California.” Although Mr. Derby states that he is “not regularly engaged in the practice of law in California” (Derby Decl., ¶ 6), he does not indicate that he is not “[r]egularly employed in the State of California.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (a)(2).) 

Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff’s application is denied without prejudice. Plaintiff is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.  

DATED:  November 20, 2024                      

                                                                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court