Judge: Thomas Falls, Case: 21PSCV00911, Date: 2022-10-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21PSCV00911    Hearing Date: October 13, 2022    Dept: R

DEFENDANT SKINSPIRIT ESSENTIAL, LLC’S UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR PRO

HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ABRAHAM K. LORBER

                                                Responding Party: Unopposed[1]

Tentative Ruling

DEFENDANT SKINSPIRIT ESSENTIAL, LLC’S UNOPPOSED APPLICATION FOR

PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF ABRAHAM K. LORBER is GRANTED, contingent

upon proof of payment by the hearing date.

Background

This is an ADA case.

On November 5, 2021, Plaintiff Rebecca Castillo filed her action against Defendant SkinSpirit Essential LLC.

On January 4, 2022, Defendant filed its Answer.

On February 17, 2022, Defendant’s Counsel filed a Notice of Withdrawal.

On September 19, 2022, the instant application was filed.

Legal Standard

California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40 governs counsel’s ability to appear in a matter as counsel pro hac vice. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.)  Rule 9.40 states, “A person who is not a licensee of the State Bar of California but who is an attorney in good standing of and eligible to practice before the bar of any United States court or the highest court in any state, territory, or insular possession of the United States, and who has been retained to appear in a particular cause pending in a court of this state, may in the discretion of such court be permitted upon written application to appear as counsel pro hac vice, provided that an active licensee of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record.”  (Id., rule 9.40, subd. (a).)  “No person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule if the person is: (1) A resident of the State of California; (2) Regularly employed in the State of California; or (3) Regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.”  (Ibid.) 

“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.”  (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40, subd. (c)(1).)  “The application must state: (1) The applicant's residence and office address; (2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission; (3) That the applicant is a licensee 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 licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.”  (Id., rule 9.40, subd. (d).)  Additionally, the applicant must also “pay a reasonable fee not exceeding $50 to the State Bar of California with the copy of the application and the notice of hearing that is served on the State Bar.”  (Id., rule 9.40, subd. (e)) (emphasis added).

Discussion

Defendant moves for an Order admitting Abraham K. Lorber (“Applicant”) to appear pro hac vice.

The only defect the court notes is that the $50 fee has not yet been submitted to the State Bar. (Lorber Decl., ¶6 [“I will submit the requisite $50.00 fee to the State Bar of California, with copies of the pleadings relating to this application.”]) (emphasis added). However, rather than deny the motion on a defect that can be readily cured, the court merely requests that the Applicant provide proof of said payment by/during the hearing date.

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, the application is GRANTED contingent upon proof of payment by the hearing date.