MacRobie vs. Forward Financing LLC

Here, Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the court orders for which he has filed notices of appeal.

Proceedings regarding these orders are stayed and this court is without jurisdiction to rule on the motions for reconsideration.

Therefore, the court will take the motions off calendar.

7 MacRobie vs. Forward Application to Appear Pro Hac Vice Financing LLC The Verified Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Claire Daly is GRANTED.

Pending Motion

Counsel Claire Daly of Goodwin Procter LLP in New York, New York applies to appear as counsel pro hac vice for Defendant Forward Financing LLC.

Standards to Appear Pro Hac Vice

An attorney in good standing in another jurisdiction who has been retained to appear in a case pending this court may apply to appear as counsel pro hac vice in the State of California, so long as an active member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record in the case. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

The attorney desiring admission pro hac vice must file a verified application and a proof of service showing service by mail of a copy of the notice of hearing and application on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco office, along with payment of a $50.00 fee. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1) & (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.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d).)

The “application to be admitted ‘pro hac vice’ is addressed to the court’s sound discretion.” (Big Lots Stores, Inc. v. Superior Court of San Diego County (2020) 57 Cal.App.5th 773, 779.)

However, courts have “embraced the conviction ‘that the state should keep to a necessary minimum its interference with the individual's desire to defend himself in whatever manner he deems best.’” (Magee v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 949, 952, quoting People v. Crovedi (1966) 65 Cal.2d 199, 208.)

Thus, the “right to appear by retained counsel of one’s choice will tolerate the denial of an application for association only in extreme circumstances, although the attorney permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice is “subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of California with respect to the law governing the conduct of attorneys.” (Magee v. Superior Court (1973) 8 Cal.3d 949, 953, fn. 1.)

Here, all of the requirements for pro hac vice admission have been met and the application is not opposed.

The court will therefore grant the application.

Defendant shall give notice of this ruling.

8 Singh vs. Montano Motion for Terminating Sanctions

There is no written tentative ruling at this 30-2024-01403527 time. The court may give an indication of its thinking at oral argument and will hear from the parties or their counsel at that time.

9 Hasso vs. Union Trading Motion to Set Aside Company, W.L.L. There is no written tentative ruling at this time. The court may give an indication of its 30-2025-01521767 thinking at oral argument and will hear from the parties or their counsel at that time.

10 Valdez vs. Park West Motion for Summary Adjudication Landscape Maintenance, Inc. There is no written tentative ruling at this time. The court may give an indication of its thinking at oral argument and will hear 30-2025-01458373 from the parties or their counsel at that time.

11 Vickers vs. L.G. Falconer Motion for Summary Adjudication Trust There is no written tentative ruling at this time. The court may give an indication of its 30-2023-01363812 thinking at oral argument and will hear from the parties or their counsel at that time.