Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 24STCV33281, Date: 2025-03-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV33281    Hearing Date: March 4, 2025    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Defendant McDonald’s Restaurants of California, Inc. (“Defendant”) moves for an order granting the admission of Luis A. Santos as counsel pro hac vice on behalf of Defendant in this matter.

The Court notes a few 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.” In addition, “if the notice is served by mail, the required 16-day period of notice before the hearing shall be increased by five calendar days if the place of mailing and the place of address are within the State of California…” (Code Civ. Proc., § 1005, subd. (b).) Here, the proof of service attached to Defendant’s application indicates that the application was served by U.S. Mail on February 6, 2025. However, sixteen court days prior to the March 4, 2025 hearing date on the instant application is February 6, 2025. Five calendar days prior to February 6, 2025 is February 1, 2025. Thus, the application does not appear to have been timely served under Code of Civil Procedure section 1005, subdivision (b). 

Second, pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subdivision (d)(1), “[t]he application must state…The applicant’s residence and office address.” It does not appear that Mr. Santos has provided his residence address. 

Third, 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.” Mr. Santos states that “I have not applied to appear pro hac vice in any matters other than as set forth above in California in the preceding two years.” (Santos Decl., ¶ 5.) The Court notes that the preceding paragraphs of Mr. Santos’s declaration do not appear to list any applications by Mr. Santos to appear as counsel pro hac vice. It is unclear from paragraph 5 of the declaration if Mr. Santos has filed any applications to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this state in the preceding two years.

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

DATED:  March 4, 2025                   

                                                                        ________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court