Brown v. Jonathan Neil and Associates, Inc., 1:17-cv-00675-LJO-SAB. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20171213b64
Visitors: 23
Filed: Dec. 12, 2017
Latest Update: Dec. 12, 2017
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING ARI H. MARCUS' TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED (ECF No. 13) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . The court has read and considered the application of Ari H. Marcus, attorney for, Plaintiff Teri Brown for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice under the provisions of Local Rule 180(b)(2) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for this District. Local Rule 180 provides The pro hac vice application shall be electronical
Summary: ORDER REQUIRING ARI H. MARCUS' TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED (ECF No. 13) STANLEY A. BOONE , Magistrate Judge . The court has read and considered the application of Ari H. Marcus, attorney for, Plaintiff Teri Brown for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice under the provisions of Local Rule 180(b)(2) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for this District. Local Rule 180 provides The pro hac vice application shall be electronicall..
More
ORDER REQUIRING ARI H. MARCUS' TO SHOW CAUSE WHY PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED
(ECF No. 13)
STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.
The court has read and considered the application of Ari H. Marcus, attorney for, Plaintiff Teri Brown for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice under the provisions of Local Rule 180(b)(2) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for this District. Local Rule 180 provides
The pro hac vice application shall be electronically presented to the Clerk and shall state under penalty of perjury . . . if the attorney has concurrently or within the year preceding the current application made any other pro hac vice applications to this Court, the title and number of each action in which such application was made, the date of each application, and whether each application was granted.
L.R. 180(b)(2)(i).
In the current application, counsel states under penalty of perjury that he has not concurrently or within the preceding year made a pro hac vice application to this court. (ECF No. 13.) However, on June 21, 2017, counsel submitted a pro hac vice application to represent the same plaintiff in Brown v. Charter Communications, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-00670-LJO-JLT (E.D. Cal.). Mr. Marcus' application was granted on August 30, 2017.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that within five (5) days of the date of entry of this order, Ari H. Marcus shall show cause in writing why his pro hac vice application should not be denied for failure to comply with Rule 180.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle
