Judge: Thomas D. Long, Case: 21STCV08004, Date: 2023-02-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV08004    Hearing Date: February 14, 2023    Dept: 48

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Lee Stapleton seeks to be admitted pro hac vice to represent Defendant Badia Spices, Inc. in this action.

An attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction who is not be a resident of California, regularly employed in California, or regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in California may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in California.  (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)  The attorney must a verified application together with proof of service by mail of a copy of the application and notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office.  (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c).)  The applicant must also pay a $50.00 fee to the State Bar of California.  (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e).)

The application must state (1) the applicant’s residence and office addresses; (2) the courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) that the applicant is a member in good standing in those courts; (4) that the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court; (5) 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; and (6) the name, address, and telephone number of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record in the local action.  (California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)

Lee Stapleton’s application complies with the requirements, and the $500.00 application fee has been paid.  (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (e)(1).)

Plaintiff opposes the application, contending that Ms. Stapleton is engaged in substantial activities in California and has made repeated appearances in California.  (Opposition at pp. 6-7.)  Ms. Stapleton’s application in Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Baja Ranch Supermarket, et al. (Case No. 19STCV23642) was granted on January 6, 2020.  (Stapleton Decl. ¶ 6.)  Ms. Stapleton’s application in Consumer Advocacy Group, Inc. v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc., et al. (Case No. 19STCV38610) was granted on February 28, 2020.  (Stapleton Decl. ¶ 7.)  The Court finds that these two cases do not constitute substantial business, professional, or other activities in California.  (See Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. v. Superior Court (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, 710-711 [finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when granting pro hac vice status to an attorney who was engaged in at least 16 cases].)

Plaintiff also contends that “Ms. Stapleton has repeatedly flouted the rules of professionalism and civility in litigation.”  (Opposition at p. 7.)  If Ms. Stapleton—or any counsel—fails to comply with the standards of professional conduct and civility in this action, she (or any other counsel) could be subject to sanctions.  At this stage, however, this is not grounds to deny the application.

Accordingly, the application for admission pro hac vice is GRANTED.

On or before February 14, 2024, counsel must pay the annual renewal fee of $500.00.  (Gov. Code, § 70617, subd. (e)(2).)

A Non-Appearance Case Review Re: Annual Pro Hac Vice Renewal Fees by Lee Stapleton is scheduled for 02/22/2024 at 9:30 AM in Department 48 at Stanley Mosk Courthouse (February 22, 2024).

Moving party to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit.  Parties intending to appear are encouraged to appear remotely and should be prepared to comply with Dept. 48’s new requirement that those attending court in person wear a surgical or N95 or KN95 mask.

     Dated this 14th day of February 2023