Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV19989, Date: 2022-10-11 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV19989    Hearing Date: October 11, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background 

Defendant Fisher Scientific Company, L.L.C. (“Fisher”) moves for an order permitting Caitlin R. Conroy, Esq. (“Conroy”) to appear as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Fisher. Plaintiff Lynn Andrea Couch (“Plaintiff”) opposes.

Discussion

As an initial matter, the Court notes a few defects with the application.

First, the Court notes that the “Verified Application for Admission of Caitlin R. Conroy to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice” filed on October 4, 2022 (the same date Fisher’s reply was filed) does not attach a proof of service, so it is unclear whether it was served. In addition, the proof of service attached to Fisher’s notice of motion, filed on September 9, 2022, does not list the “Verified Application for Admission of Caitlin R. Conroy to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice” among the moving papers that were served on September 9, 2022. The Court notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(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.”

Second, although Conroy indicates that she applied to appear as counsel pro hac vice in California in two specified matters in the last two years, and that her applications were granted on certain dates, Conroy does not indicate the dates of each application. (Conroy App., ¶ 6.) Pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(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.”  

Plaintiff opposes the motion on the grounds that Conroy has appeared in two California state court cases pro hac vice during the past two years. Plaintiff notes that pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(b), “[a]bsent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.”

Fisher asserts that California does not strictly interpret “repeated appearances” under Rule 9.40(b), and that two prior pro hac vice appearances are well within the range of permissibility. Fisher cites to Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, 709, where the petitioner, “oppose[d] the application of…Arizona attorney, Leo Beus, for permission to appear therein as counsel for plaintiffs pro hac vice” on a number of grounds. The Court of Appeal noted that “[w]e turn to petitioner’s two remaining grounds, both of which are stated in the rule as separate and distinct grounds of ineligibility thereunder. As regards one of these grounds, repeated appearances pursuant to the rule, we choose not to invoke it in this case because the record shows without dispute that Beus to date has made only one other appearance under this rule.” (Id. at p. 710.)  Fisher also cites to Golba v. Dick’s Sporting Goods, Inc. (2015) 238 Cal.App.4th 1251, 1255, where the Court of Appeal “conclude[d] the trial court did not err by denying recovery of attorney fees for work performed by out-of-state counsel who represented the named plaintiff in a class action in California but who had not been admitted pro hac vice.” The Court of Appeal noted that “[t]he trial court denied the second pro hac vice application because Joseph Siprut had appeared 12 times in California state courts within the prior 11 months.” (Id. at p. 1266.) Here by contrast, Conroy has had two applications to be admitted pro hac vice in California granted within the last two years. (Conroy App., ¶ 6.) 

Based on the foregoing, the Court does not find that Conroy’s two prior pro hac vice applications are grounds for denying the instant motion. However, as set forth above, the Court identified other defects with the motion, so the Court will discuss whether those defects can be easily reedied or whether proper service was not actually made.  If the latter is the case, the motion will be denied, but without prejudice.

Fisher is ordered to give notice of this ruling.¿¿ 

DATED:  October 11, 2022              

                                                                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court