Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

EVANSTON INSURANCE CO. v. UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC., C 15-03988 WHA. (2016)

Court: District Court, N.D. California Number: infdco20160506a43 Visitors: 8
Filed: May 05, 2016
Latest Update: May 05, 2016
Summary: ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS OF ATTORNEYS SARAH BALTZELL AND STAN SEXTON WILLIAM ALSUP , District Judge . The pro hac vice applications of Attorneys Sarah Baltzell and Stan Sexton (Dkt. Nos. 54-55) are DENIED for failing to comply with Civil Local Rule 11-3. The local rule requires that an applicant certify that "he or she is an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest court of another State or the District of Columbia, specifying su
More

ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS OF ATTORNEYS SARAH BALTZELL AND STAN SEXTON

The pro hac vice applications of Attorneys Sarah Baltzell and Stan Sexton (Dkt. Nos. 54-55) are DENIED for failing to comply with Civil Local Rule 11-3. The local rule requires that an applicant certify that "he or she is an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest court of another State or the District of Columbia, specifying such bar" (emphasis added). Filling out the pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it only identifies the state of bar membership — such as "the bar of Texas" — is inadequate under the local rule because it fails to identify a specific court (such as the Supreme Court of Texas). While the application fees do not need to be paid again, the applications cannot be processed until corrected forms are submitted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer