Judge: Wesley L. Hsu, Case: 22PSCV03092, Date: 2023-05-05 Tentative Ruling



Case Number: 22PSCV03092    Hearing Date: May 5, 2023    Dept: L

Plaintiff Doe’s Application for Admission of Basyle J. Tchividjian to the Bar of this Court Pro Hac Vice is continued to May 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.

Background   

Plaintiff Plaintiff Doe (“Plaintiff”) alleges as follows: Plaintiff was sexually and emotionally abused while a minor attending Christbridge Academy (“School”) in Azusa, California. Plaintiff was also abused while a member of the Christbridge Immanuel Church (“Church”), which is located on the same campus as School.

On December 28, 2022, Plaintiff filed a complaint, asserting causes of action against Defendants John Cottuso, School, Church, Daniel Simonson, Accrediting Commission for Schools, Western Association of Schools and Colleges and Does 1-50 for:

1.                  Sexual Assault

2.                  Sexual Battery (Civil Code § 1708.5)

3.                  Civil Rights Violation (Civil Code § 51.9)

4.                  Civil Rights Violation (Civil Code § 51.7)

5.                  Civil Rights Violation (Civil Code § 52.4)

6.                  Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress

7.                  Negligence Per Se

8.                  Negligence

A Case Management Conference is set for May 5, 2023.

Legal Standard

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. 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.” (Cal. Rules of Court (“CRC”) Rule 9.40, subd. (a).)

“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. The notice of hearing must be given at the time prescribed in Code of Civil Procedure section 1005 unless the court has prescribed a shorter period.” (CRC 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.” (CRC Rule 9.40, subd. (d).)

“An applicant for permission to appear as counsel pro hac vice under this rule must 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. . .” (CRC Rule 9.40, subd. (e).)

Discussion

Plaintiff moves, pursuant to California Rules of Court Rule 9.40, for an order allowing the pro hac vice admission of Basyle J. Tchividjian (“Tchividjian”).

Tchividjian has not provided the court with his residence and office addresses. Tchividjian does not state that he is not regularly employed in the State of California and that he is not regularly engaged in substantial business, professional, or other activities in the State of California. Tchividjian is to file and serve a supplemental declaration containing this information at or before the time of the hearing.

Additionally, Plaintiff’s application represents that the “notice and application for admission, along with Mr. Tchividjian’s sworn declaration, are being served on the State Bar of California. (See, concurrently filed and served proof of service).” Plaintiff, however, has failed to file any proof of service. There is also no evidence that Plaintiff has paid the required $50.00 fee to the State Bar of California.

The application otherwise complies with the requirements of California Rules of Court Rule 9.40; accordingly, the application is granted, contingent upon the filing of the aforesaid supplemental declaration, evidence that Plaintiff has paid the required $50.00 fee to the State Bar of California and the filing of a proof of service reflecting Code of Civil Procedure § 1005 notice of the application to the State Bar of California. The matter is continued to May 5, 2023 at 8:30 a.m.