Judge Theresa M. Traber, Case Number: 24STCV28806, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Theresa M. Traber, Case: 24STCV28806, Date: 2025-02-06 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24STCV28806 Hearing Date: February 6, 2025 Dept: 47

Tentative Ruling

Judge Theresa M. Traber, Department 47

HEARING DATE: February 6, 2025 TRIAL DATE: NOT SET

CASE: Christian Kepler v. Sixt Rent a Car LLC; et al.

CASE NO.: 24STCV28806

MOTION TO BE ADMITTED PRO HAC VICE

MOVING PARTY: Attorney Patrick M. Emery on behalf of Defendants Sixt Rent a Car, LLC and Sixt Franchise USA, LLC

RESPONDING PARTY(S): No response on eCourt as of 02/03/25

STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:

This is a civil rights action that was filed on November 4, 2024. Plaintiff alleges that he was subjected to racial discrimination by applying inappropriate charges with respect to a vehicle rental.

Attorney Patrick M. Emery moves to be admitted as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants Sixt Rent a Car, LLC and Sixt Franchise USA.

TENTATIVE RULING:

Attorney Patrick M. Emery moves to be admitted as counsel pro hac vice for Defendants Sixt Rent a Car, LLC and Sixt Franchise USA.

1. __X__ The application is verified.¿(Cal. Rule of Court Rule 9.40(c)(1).)

2. __X__ The application is accompanied by a proof of service by mail in accordance with Code of Civil Procedure section 1013a or by email in accordance with section 1010.6(e).¿(Rule 9.40(c)(1).) (Proof of Service.)

3. __X__ Notice of hearing has been given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005.¿(Rule 9.40(c)(1).)

4. _n/a_The application was served in a shorter period for notice the court prescribed.¿(Rule 9.40(c)(1).)

5. __X__ The application shows service on all parties who have appeared and the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office. (Rule 9.40(c)(1).) (Proof of Service.)

6. __X__ Proof that applicant paid a reasonable fee not exceeding $50 to the State Bar of California with the copy of the application and the notice of hearing.¿(Rule 9.40(e).) (Declaration of Neil Katsuyama ISO App. ¶2.)

7. __X __ The applicant is not a resident of the State of California.¿(Rule 9.40(a)(1).) (Declaration of Patrick M. Emery ISO App. ¶ 2.)

8. __X__ The applicant is not regularly employed in the State of California.¿(Rule 9.40(a)(2).) (Emery Decl. ¶ 2.)

9. __NO_ The applicant is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.¿(Rule 9.40(a)(3).) (Not addressed in sworn declaration.)

10. __X__ The application states the applicant’s residence and office address.¿(CRC 9.40(d)(1).) (Emery Decl. ¶ 2.)

11. __X_ The application states the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission.¿(CRC 9.40(d)(2).) (Emery Decl. ¶ 3.)

12. __X_ The application states that the applicant is a member in good standing in the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice.¿(Rule 9.40(d)(3).) (Emery Decl. ¶ 3.)

13. __X__ The application states that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court.¿(Rule 9.40(d)(4).) (Emery Decl. ¶ 5.)

14. __NO__ The application states the title of 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.¿(Rule 9.40(d)(5).) (Emery Decl. ¶ 4; States title of court and cause and provides status of applications within the past two years, but not the dates of each application.)

15. __NO__ The applicant has not made repeated appearances pursuant to Rule 9.40(b). (The applicant has been admitted as counsel pro hac vice in two actions in the Superior Court for Orange County. The applicant has also been admitted in one action in the Eastern District of California, and one action in the Central District of California which is removed from and pending remand to the Superior Court for Los Angeles County. The Applicant also has one pending application in the Superior Court of Orange County. See Emery Decl. ¶ 4.)

16. __NO__ Any special circumstances for repeated appearances pursuant to Rule 9.40(b). “Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.” (Rule 9.40(b).) (No special circumstances described.)

17. __X__The application states the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.¿(Rule 9.40(d)(6).) (Emery Decl. ¶ 6.)

18. __X_ $500 filing fee per application paid. (See reservation page.)

In addition to the several procedural defects in Attorney Emery’s application, the application also discloses that the proposed counsel has been admitted in two actions in the Superior Court for Orange County in the past two years, with another application pending and a fourth action pending removal from the District Court for the Central District of California to this Court. With two previous admissions and two forthcoming, the applicant has admitted to making repeated appearances as counsel pro hac vice. As no special circumstances have been described justifying repeated appearances, the applicant is not entitled to appear as counsel pro hac vice in this action.

Accordingly, Attorney Patrick M. Emery’s Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice is DENIED.

Moving Party to give notice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 6, 2025 ___________________________________

Theresa M. Traber

Judge of the Superior Court

Any party may submit on the tentative ruling by contacting the courtroom via email at Smcdept47@lacourt.org by no later than 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing. All interested parties must be copied on the email. It should be noted that if you submit on a tentative ruling the court will still conduct a hearing if any party appears. By submitting on the tentative you have, in essence, waived your right to be present at the hearing, and you should be aware that the court may not adopt the tentative, and may issue an order which modifies the tentative ruling in whole or in part.