Moving Party: Steven M. Pavsner
Resp. Party: None

Pavsner’s application for admission pro hac vice is DENIED, without prejudice to Pavsner one last time re-submitting an application that is in compliance with California Rules of Court rule 9.40(d)(2).

BACKGROUND:

Plaintiffs Broderick Morris and Qadree El-Amin commenced this action on 5/7/13 against defendants John Branca and John McClain, executors of the estate of Michael J. Jackson, for breach of contract and accounting. On 1/8/14, plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint for declaratory relief, breach of contract, and accounting.

This application was originally heard on 2/6/14 and was denied without prejudice to Pavsner re-submitting the application in compliance with CRC rule 9.40.

ANALYSIS:

Pavsner moves to be admitted pro hac vice in order to represent the plaintiffs in this action.

Under California Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a),

[a] person who is not a member of the State Bar of California but who is a member 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 member of the State Bar of California is associated as attorney of record.

(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(a).) No person is eligible to appear as counsel pro hac vice under rule 9.40(a) 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, rule 9.40(a).)

“Absent special circumstances, repeated appearances by any person under this rule is a cause for denial of an application.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(b).) Any individual “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(c).) Additionally, “[t]he 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.” (Ibid.)

The application must include:

(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.

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

An applicant “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.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(e).) If the applicant is permitted to appear as counsel pro hac vice, he is “subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of this state with respect to the law of this state governing the conduct of attorneys to the same extent as a member of the State Bar of California.” (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(f).) Additionally, “[t]he counsel pro hac vice must familiarize himself or herself and comply with the standards of professional conduct required of members of the State Bar of California and will be subject to the disciplinary jurisdiction of the State Bar with respect to any of his or her acts occurring in the course of such appearance.” (Ibid.)

The declaration provides Pavsner’s residence and office addresses. (Amended App., ¶ 1.) Pavsner states that he is a member in good standing in Maryland, the District of Columbia, and Pennsylvania. (Id., ¶ 2.) Pavsner states that the is not now and has never been suspended or disbarred by any court. (Ibid.) Pavsner has not filed an application to appear as counsel pro hac vice in California in the past two years. (Id., ¶ 3.) Pavsner provides the name, telephone number, and address of Jeffrey L. Fazio, an active member of the State Bar of California who has been designated as co-counsel in this action. (Id., ¶ 6.) Pavsner provides proof of payment of the $50.00 fee to the State Bar. (Id., ¶ 4, Exh. A.)

However, Pavsner’s application still fails to comply with rule 9.40 because Pavsner fails to provide the dates of admission to other state bars. (See Amended App., ¶ 2; Cal. Rules of Court, rule 9.40(d)(2).) Indeed, Pavsner fails to identify all courts in which he has been admitted to practice. (See Amended App., ¶ 2 [vaguely stating that he is an inactive member of “various federal bars”].) The Court notes that the information in the instant application differs from that in the previously filed declaration in support of this application. (See Decl. Filed 10/24/13, ¶ 1 [stating that Pavsner is an active member of the bar for the Supreme Court of the United States and the United States District Courts for the District of Columbia and the District of Maryland]; Amended App., ¶ 2 [stating that Pavsner is an inactive member of various federal bars, including the Supreme Court of the United States].) It is certainly possible that Pavsner was an active member of the bar for the Supreme Court of the United States in October, 2013, but became an inactive member prior to February 2014, but this seems unlikely.

Pavsner’s application for admission pro hac vice is DENIED, without prejudice to Pavsner re-submitting an application in compliance with California Rules of Court rule 9.40(d)(2). Should Pavsner fail to comply with California Rules of Court rule 9.40(d)(2) on a third attempt, the court is not inclined to allow leave to amend a fourth time.