KELLER INDUSTRIES, INC., PETITIONER,
v.
ERIC D. YODER AND DIANA L. YODER, RESPONDENTS
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for an out-of-state attorney to appear pro hac vice, as limited appearances do not constitute general practice of law in Florida.
An out-of-state attorney, Paul V. Kaulas, who had appeared in three prior Florida cases for the defendant, sought to appear pro hac vice as co-counsel…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Pro Hac Vice Appearance cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM.
Because the record evidence adduced below1 demonstrates that Paul V. Kaulas, an Illinois attorney in admittedly good standing, has appeared pro hac vice in only three cases in Florida courts in the past three years, we conclude that the trial court abused its discretion in denying the defendant Keller Industries, Inc.’s motion to allow Mr. Kaulas to appear pro hac vice as co-counsel for said defendant in the products liability action below. Contrary to the trial court’s finding, it is our view that these limited court appearances in Florida — all on behalf of the defendant Keller Industries, Inc. in product liability cases — do not constitute the general practice of law in Florida requiring that Mr. Kaulas become a member of the Florida Bar. Accordingly, there was no reasonable basis for denying the subject motion which was otherwise properly made pursuant to Rule 2.060(b) of the Florida Rules of Judicial Administration. See, e.g., Huff v. State, 569 So. 2d 1247, 1248-49 (Fla.1990).
Based on the above-stated analysis, the defendant Keller Industries, Inc.’s petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the order denying the defendant’s motion to allow Paul V. Kaulas to appear pro hac vice as co-counsel for Keller Industries, Inc. in the action below is quashed, and the cause is remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.
Petition granted; order quashed; cause remanded.
. We have not considered the material in the plaintiffs Edward and Diana Yoder’s appendix at tabs 1-9 as these materials were never submitted to the trial court and are presented here for the first time on certiorari review. Because these materials are not properly a part of the record in this case, such materials are hereby stricken from the record in this case. See, e.g., Thornber v. City of Ft. Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754, 755 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988); Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 511 So. 2d 593, 593 n. 3 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987), rev. denied, 520 So. 2d 586 (Fla.1988).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Ford Motor Co. v. Smith, 821 So. 2d 1084 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)…CURIAM. We grant the petition for writ of certio-rari and quash the trial court order denying the motion of petitioner’s attorney to appear pro hac vice. See Pepsico, Inc. v. Roque, 743 So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Keller Indus., Inc. v. Yoder, 625 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). Certiorari granted; order quashed.…
-
Brooks v. AMP Servs. Ltd. for the Walter & Anna Bronner Tr., 979 So. 2d 435 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008)…lable to review orders denying a motion to appear pro hac vice. See, e.g., Clare v. Coleman (Parent) Holdings, Inc., 928 So. 2d 1246 (Fla. 4th DCA 2006); Pepsico, Inc. v. Roque, 743 [*438] So. 2d 160 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999); Keller Indus., Inc. v. Yoder, 625 So. 2d 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993). The order on review will have an adverse impact on Brooks’ ability to seek pro hac vice status in the future in this and in other jurisdictions. Clare, 928 So. 2d at 1249; Fla. R. Jud. Admin. 2.510(b)(3) (requiring attorneys who…
-
THI Holdings, LLC v. Shattuck, 93 So. 3d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012)…AMP Servs., Ltd., 979 So. 2d 435, 437 (Fla. 4th DCA 2008); see also Pepsico, Inc. v. Roque, 743 So. 2d 160,161 (Fla. 3d DCA 1999) (granting certiorari to review an order denying the admission of attorneys pro hac vice); Keller Indus., Inc. v. Yoder, 625 So. 2d 82, 82 (Fla. 3d DCA 1993) (same). The reason for this is a practical one: since neither the lawyer nor his firm are “currently involved in the litigation and he is not otherwise a party,” the lawyer is left “with no remedy on the final appeal of the un…
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Huff v. State, 569 So. 2d 1247 (Fla. 1990)
- Thornber v. City OF Fort Walton Beach, 534 So. 2d 754 (Fla. 1st DCA 1988)
- Rosenberg v. Rosenberg, 511 So. 2d 593 (Fla. 3d DCA 1987)