Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 22STCV24209, Date: 2025-01-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV24209    Hearing Date: January 6, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Defendants Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC (formerly known as Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp.) (jointly, “Merck”) apply for orders admitting Mark Fiore and Victoria Peng-Rue pro hac vice as co-counsel for Merck.

The Court notes a few defects with the applications.

First, 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.” Mr. Fiore and Ms. Peng-Rue state that they are “not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.” (Fiore Decl., ¶ 2; Peng-Rue Decl., ¶ 2.) However, Mr. Fiore and Ms. Peng-Rue do not indicate that they are not “[r]egularly employed in the State of California.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (a)(2).) 

Second, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subdivision (d)(5), “[t]he application must state…The 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.” Ms. Peng-Rue states, “I have filed one application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the following proceedings in the State of California in the past two years, in Merrick Brunker v. Merck & Co. Inc., et al., Case No. 56-2022-00563045-CU-PL-VTA; I was admitted in that case on September 5, 2024.” (Peng-Rue Decl., ¶ 7.) However, Ms. Peng-Rue does not indicate “[t]he title of [the] court” in which such application was filed, or the “date of [the] application.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (d)(5).)

In addition, Mr. Fiore states that he has “not filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the following proceedings in the State of California in the past two years.” (Fiore Decl., ¶ 7.) Mr. Fiore does not specify what “proceedings” he is referring to. It is unclear from paragraph 7 of Mr. Fiore’s declaration if Mr. Fiore has “filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (d)(5).)

Based on the foregoing, Merck’s applications are denied without prejudice. Merck is ordered to provide notice of this ruling.  

DATED:  January 6, 2025                 

                                                                  ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court