Low Income Housing Family, LLC v. Aspen Specialty Insurance Company, et al.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT LOW INCOME HOUSING FAMILY, LLC; Plaintiff, vs. ASPEN SPECIALTY INSURANCE COMPANY; LEXINGTON INSURANCE COMPANY; SCOTTSDALE INSURANCE COMPANY; CERTAIN UNDERWRITERS AT LLOYD'S, LONDON; SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 50, inclusive, Defendant s. |)))))))))))))))))) | CASE NO: 26STCV14440 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION OF CHRISTINE M. RENELLA TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE [CRS No. 146459423447] [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: APPLICATION OF JACARRI M. WALKER TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL PRO HAC VICE [CRS No. 150490994782] Dept. 731 September 8, 2026 8:30 a.m. Matter No. 11 | Moving Party: Out-of-State Counsel, Christine M. Renella Out-of-State Counsel, Jacarri M. Walker

Opposing Party: None Notice: OK

Background Facts

Now before the Court are the duly noticed but unopposed, and substantively identical applications of out-of-state counsel, Christine M. Renella, Esq., and Jacarri M. Walker, Esq., to appear as pro hac vice counsel for Defendants in this action.

Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission [Renella]

Legal Standard

Out-of-state counsel may appear before a California court as counsel pro hac vice. (Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank v. Superior Court (1998) 17 Cal.4th 119, 130, as modified, Feb. 25, 1998.) To do so, out-of-state counsel must comply with requirements established in California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a), (c), (d), and (e). (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40.) A Pro Hac Vice application may be denied where: (1) the application fails to the follow the precepts of California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c), (d) or (e); (2) the applicant is a California resident, regularly employed in California, or has other activities in California, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.4 0 (a)(1)-(a)(3)); or (3) absent special circumstances, the applicant has made repeated appearances under rule 9.40, (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.4 0 (b)).

Discussion

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a)

Moving to the merits, the pro hac vice application satisfies this rule of court, which requires that a pro hac vice application demonstrate that the applicant is: A member in good standing of another state bar e ligible to practice in any United State s court s or the highest court in another jurisdictio n (see Renella Application, Renella Decl., P. P. 6 - 8 [admission in two states and various federal courts, with no basis for not finding good standing]); and A ssociated with an active member of the California Bar as attorney of record (id. at P. 10) . (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)

The pro hac vice application satisfies this rule of court, which requires that when a pro hac vice application is filed in a superior court, that application and its proof of service must satisfy the requirements set out in California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1), under which the applicant must: (1) F ile with the court a verified application (see Renella Application, Renella Decl., 2:1-3, 3:8-12); (2) File a proof of service showing service of the application and the notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco offic e (see Renella Proof of Service [service on Plaintiff via counsel and on State Bar via portal]); and (3) Provide notice of hearing in the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period (see Renella Notice of Hearing, 2:1-6). (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1) .)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)

The pro hac vice application satisfies this rule of court, which requires that a pro hac vice application provide: (1) The applicant's residence and office address (Renella Application, Renella Decl., P.P. 4-5); (2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission (id. at P. 7); (3) That the applicant is a licensee in good standing in those courts (id. at P. P. 6, 8); (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court (id. at P. 8); (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 (id. at P. 9); and (6) The name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record (id. at P. 10). (Cal.

Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(1)-(d)(6).)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e)

At this time, t he pro hac vice application does not satisfy this rule of court, which requires that a pro hac vice application show payment of the required fee set by the State, where the moving papers only assert that payment occurred in the points and authorities (Renella Application, Points and Authorities, 4:15-17), without asserting the same in counsel's declarations or attaching proof of payment (see Renella Application, Renella Decl. & MacBride Decl.; Renella Notice of Hearing; Renella [Proposed] Order) . However, g iven the representation in the points and authorities, the Court will proceed with a conditional grant as follows, subject to satisfaction of this rule.

Conclusion

Out-of-state counsel, Christine M. Renella, Esq.'s application for admission as pro hac vice counsel is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED, with the grant to take effect upon valid service and filing of evidence of payment of the State Bar pro hac vice fee, which may be presented at oral argument.

Application for Pro Hac Vice Admission [Walker]

Legal Standard

See Sec. 2.a. supra.

Discussion

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a)

Moving to the merits, the pro hac vice application satisfies this rule of court, which requires that a pro hac vice application demonstrate that the applicant is: A member in good standing of another state bar e ligible to practice in any United State s court s or the highest court in another jurisdictio n (see Walker Application, Walker Decl., P.P. 6-8 [admission in two states and various federal courts, with no basis for not finding good standing]); and A ssociated with an active member of the California Bar as attorney of record (id. at P. 10) . (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)

The pro hac vice application satisfies this rule of court, which requires that when a pro hac vice application is filed in a superior court, that application and its proof of service must satisfy the requirements set out in California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1), under which the applicant must: (1) F ile with the court a verified application (see Walker Application, Walker Decl., 2:1-3, 3:8-12); (2) File a proof of service showing service of the application and the notice of hearing on all parties who have appeared in the case and on the State Bar of California at its San Francisco offic e (see Walker Proof of Service [service on Plaintiff via counsel and on State Bar via portal]); and (3) Provide notice of hearing in the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period (see Walker Notice of Hearing, 2:1-6). (See Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(c)(1) .)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)

The pro hac vice application satisfies this rule of court, which requires that a pro hac vice application provide: (1) The applicant's residence and office address (Walker Application, Walker Decl., P.P. 4-5); (2) The courts to which the applicant has been admitted to practice and the dates of admission (id. at P. 7); (3) That the applicant is a licensee in good standing in those courts (id. at P.P. 6, 8); (4) That the applicant is not currently suspended or disbarred in any court (id. at P. 8); (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 (id. at P. 9); and (6) The name, address, and telephone number of the active licensee of the State Bar of California who is attorney of record (id. at P. 10). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(1)-(d)(6).)

Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e)

At this time, t he pro hac vice application does not satisfy this rule of court, which requires that a pro hac vice application show payment of the required fee set by the State, where the moving papers only assert that payment occurred in the points and authorities (Walker Application, Points and Authorities, 4:15-17), without asserting the same in counsel's declarations or attaching proof of payment (see Walker Application, Walker Decl. & MacBride Decl.; Walker Notice of Hearing; Walker [Proposed] Order) . However, given the representation in the points and authorities, the Court will proceed with a conditional grant as follows, subject to satisfaction of this rule.

Conclusion

Out-of-state counsel, Jacarri M. Walker, Esq.'s application for admission as pro hac vice counsel is CONDITIONALLY GRANTED, with the grant to take effect upon valid service and filing of evidence of payment of the State Bar pro hac vice fee, which may be presented at oral argument.

Defendants are ordered to give notice.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court at smcdept731@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court website at www.lacourt.org.¿

If the department does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on the tentative and there are no appearances at the hearing, the motion may be placed off calendar.

If a party submits on the tentative, the party's email must include the case number and must identify the party submitting on the tentative.

If the parties do not submit on the tentative, they should arrange to appear remotely.

DATED: September 3, 2026 _____________________________________ MARK C. KIM Judge of the Superior Court | Home -->)" -->