Judge: Virginia Keeny, Case: 22VECV01314, Date: 2022-10-26 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22VECV01314    Hearing Date: October 26, 2022    Dept: W

SANELA JENKINS v. JOHN DOE

VERIFIED APPLICATION OF CHRISTOPHER J. LETKEWITCZ FOR ADMISSION PRO HAC VICE AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF SANELA JENKINS

Date of Hearing:          October 26, 2022                    Trial Date:       None Set.

Department:               W                                             Case No.:         22VECV01314

Moving Party:             Christopher J. Letkewicz

Responding Party:       None.

BACKGROUND

On September 8, 2022, Sanela Jenkins (“Plaintiff”) initiated the present action by filing a Complaint against John Doe (“Defendant”) and Roes 1 through 50 (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff’s Complaint alleges a single cause of action against Defendants for “Invasion of Privacy in False Light”.  Plaintiff’s Complaint primarily alleges that Defendant, an unknown person, used “bots” to send sent racist and bullying text messages to Plaintiff’s co-star’s son, and thereafter, used the “bots” to represent that Plaintiff was the individual sending these messages.  Plaintiff is a cast member on the reality television show, “The Real Housewives of Beverly Hills”.

On September 29, 2022, Christopher J. Letkewicz filed a Verified Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice as Counsel for Plaintiff.

[Tentative] Ruling

Christopher J. Letkewicz’s Verified Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice as Counsel for Plaintiff is DENIED, without prejudice.

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).)

ANALYSIS

Christopher J. Letkewicz, Esq. (“Mr. Letkewicz”) presently requests admission before this Court pro hac vice for the purposes of representing Plaintiff in this action.

Following a review of Mr. Letkewicz’s Verified Application, the Court finds the Application nearly satisfies all requirements outlined within California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.)  Mr. Letkewicz’s Verified Application adequately confirms the following information: (a) Mr. Letkewicz is not a resident of the State of California (Verified Application, at p. 3:7); (b) Mr. Letkewicz’s office addresses (id., at p. 3:8-10); (c) The courts to which Mr. Letkewicz has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission (id., at p. 3:11-19); (d) Mr. Letkewicz has not been suspended or disbarred in any court, and is a member in good standing in those courts (id., at p. 3:20-21); (e) The title of each court and cause in which Mr. Letkewicz 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 (id., at p. 3:24-28); (f) the name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record (id., at p. 4:1-4); (g) Mr. Letkewicz’s service of the Verified Applications upon the State Bar of California (Enns Decl., ¶ 4, Ex. B); and (h) Mr. Letkewicz’s payment of a fee in the amount of $50 to the State Bar of California (id., ¶ 4, Ex. A). 

However, the Court finds Mr. Letkewicz’s Verified Application fails to provide the following information which is required by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.  (Cal. Rules of Court, Rule 9.40.)  First, while Mr. Letkewicz’s Verified Application confirms Mr. Letkewicz is employed in Chicago, Illinois, Mr. Letkewicz’s Verified Application fails to expressly state Mr. Letkewicz is not “[r]egularly employed in the State of California” and is not “[r]egularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California.”  (Id., Rule 9.40, subd. (a)(2), (a)(3).)  Second, while Mr. Letkewicz’s Verified Application states Mr. Letkewicz’s “home address was submitted to the State Bar of California”, Mr. Letkewicz has failed to provide his residence address to this Court as required by California Rules of Court, Rule 9.40, subdivision (d)(1).  (Id., Rule 9.40, subd. (d)(1).) 

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, Mr. Letkewicz’s Verified Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice as Counsel for Plaintiff is DENIED, without prejudice.  Mr. Letkewicz is permitted to file an amended Verified Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice, ensuring that the above-identified errors are remedied.