Judge: Upinder S. Kalra, Case: 20STCV23329, Date: 2022-09-29 Tentative Ruling
1. If you wish to submit on the tentative ruling, please email the clerk at SMCdept51@lacourt.org (and “cc” all other parties in the same email) and notify all other parties in advance that you will not be appearing at the hearing. Include the word "SUBMISSION" in all caps in the subject line and include your name, contact information, the case number, and the party you represent in the body of the email. If you do not have access to the internet, you may call the clerk at (213) 633-0351.
If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear and argue the motion, and the Court may decide not to adopt the tentative ruling. Please note that the tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file any further documents relative to the hearing in question which are not authorized by statute or Rule of Court.
2. For any motion where no parties submit to the tentative ruling in advance, and no parties appear at the motion hearing, the Court may elect to either adopt the tentative ruling or take the motion off calendar, in its discretion.
3. DO NOT USE THE ABOVE EMAIL FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN TO SUBMIT TO A TENTATIVE RULING. The Court will not read or respond to emails sent to this address for any other purpose.
Case Number: 20STCV23329 Hearing Date: September 29, 2022 Dept: 51
Tentative Ruling
Judge Upinder S.
Kalra, Department 51
HEARING DATE: September
29, 2022
CASE NAME: Steven J. Horn v. Anthony N. Kling,
indivudally and as trustee of the Anthony N. Kling Trust of 1997, et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV23329
DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE
MOVING PARTY: Defendant Anthony N. Kling, et al.
RESPONDING PARTY(S): Plaintiff Steven J. Horn
REQUESTED RELIEF:
1. An
order granting the application for David Knieriem appear as counsel pro hac
vice
TENTATIVE RULING:
1. Application
to appear pro hac vice is GRANTED.
STATEMENT OF MATERIAL FACTS AND/OR PROCEEDINGS:
On June 19, 2020,
Plaintiff Steven J. Horn filed a complaint against Defendants Anthony N. Kling,
individually and as Trustee of the Anthony N. Kling Trust of 1997, Mary J.
Kling, individually and as Trustee of the Heywood F. and Mary J Kling Family
Trust Dated July 18, 1987, Cliffwood, LLC, Murky & Lurky, LLC, and Does 1
through 50. The complaint alleged six causes of action: (1) To set Aside and
Cancel Fraudulent Transfer of Real Properties, (2) Temporary Restraining Order
and Preliminary and Permanent Injunction, (3) Constructive Trust, (4)
Creditor’s Suit, (5) Fraudulent Transfer, and (6) Fraudulent Transfer. The
complaint alleges that the Plaintiff and Defendants were parties to a separate
action that resulted in a ruling in favor of Plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that
the Defendants transferred property to Defendant Murky & Lurky to conceal
assets from creditors.
On March 28,
2021, Defendants Murky & Lurky, LLC, and Cliffwood, LLC filed a Demurrer
without a Motion to Strike.
On July 6, 2021,
Plaintiff filed a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint.
On August 6, 2021, Plaintiff filed a
First Amended Complaint.
On August 23, 2021, Defendant
Cliffwood, LLC filed a Demurrer without a Motion to Strike.
On September 17, 2021, Plaintiff
file a Second Amended Complaint.
On November 5, 2021, Defendants
Anthony Kling, Mary J. Kling, Murky & Lurky, and Cliffwood, LLC filed a
Demurrer without a Motion to Strike.
On June 28, 2022, Defendants filed a Motion to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice. Plaintiff filed an Opposition
on June 30, 2022. Defendant’s reply was filed on September 15, 2022.
LEGAL STANDARD
Pursuant
to California Rules of Court 9.40, an application for appearance pro hac
vice must
be served on all parties who have appeared
in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office,
with payment of a $50.00 fee.
Additionally, 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 member in good
standing in those courts;
4. That the applicant is not currently
suspended or disbarred in any court;
5. 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; and
6. The name, address, and telephone number
of the active member of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record.
(CRC
9.40(d).)
ANALYSIS:
Defendants
move to have David Knieriem appear pro hac vice in the current matter. Movant
has provided all the information required under California Rules of
Court 9.40 in the application to appear pro
hac vice.
Plaintiff
filed an opposition arguing that Mr. Knieriem has been involved in over 12
proceedings in the past two years; thus, he is “actively engaged in the
practice of law in California without being admitted to practice law by the
State Bar of California.” (Opp. 3: 23-26.) However, the rule of court has a
“special circumstances” waiver. There are clearly special circumstances here.
All of these cases involve the same Plaintiff and involved similar causes of
action in various stages in the trial court and courts of appeal. Moreover, even Walter E. Heller Western, Inc. (1980) 111 Cal.App.3d 706, cited by
Plaintiff does not support Plaintiff’s position. There, although counsel appeared
in16 disputes and made five trips to California, the court of appeal did not
find the trial court’s decision to grant pro hac vice status an abuse of
discretion. (Id. at p. 711.) Thus, counsel
may be admitted to appear pro hac vice.
Conclusion:
For
the foregoing reasons, the Court decides the pending motion as follows:
Application
to be Admitted Pro Hac Vice is GRANTED.
Moving party is to give notice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September
29, 2022 __________________________________ Upinder
S. Kalra
Judge
of the Superior Court