ORDER DENYING NATHAN C. VOLHEIM'S PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION (ECF No. 7)

STANLEY A. BOONE, Magistrate Judge.

The court has read and considered the application of Nathan C. Volheim, attorney for Todd S. Asher, 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.

The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provides that an attorney is ineligible to appear and participate in a particular case pro hac vice if any of the following apply: "(i) the attorney resides in California, (ii) the attorney is regularly employed in California, or (iii) the attorney is regularly engaged in professional activities in California." L.R. 180(b)(2). Mr. Volheim lists three other cases in which he has made application to be admitted to practice pro hac vice in this District in the past year: Koval v. Patanaude & Felix, No. 2:19-cv-00008-KJM-CKD (E.D. Cal.) (application approved 1/3/19); Bennett v. CKS Financial, LLC, no. 2:18-cv-03100-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.) (application approved 1/3/19); Eagle v. Goldman Sachs Bank USA, no. 2:19-cv-01536-JAM-FEB (E.D. Cal.) (application approved 8/12/19).

Upon examination of Court records, during 2018 and 2018, Mr. Volehim was approved to appear pro hac vice in numerous cases. See Harang v. Uber Technologies, 2:18-cv-02998-PSG-GJS (C.D. Cal); Vargo v. Progressive Management Systems, no. 2:18-cv-08388-JAK-JEM (C.D. Cal.) (application approved 10/5/18); Heersema v. Continental Credit Control, Inc., 5:18-cv-02508-CBM-KK (C.D. Cal.) (application approved 12/6/18); Lewis v. Credico, Inc., 8:18-cv-02127-JLS-ADS (C.D. Cal.) (application approved 12/6/18); Driscoll v. Anaya Law Group, no. 8:cv-02309-AG-KES (C.D. Cal.) (application approved 1/4/19); Bank v. Bank of the West, no. 2:18-cv-10771-PJW (C.D. Cal.) (application approved 1/30/19); Burns v. Trueaccord Corp., no. 2:19-cv-00386-PSG-PLA (C.D. Cal) (application approved 1/23/19); Pacheco v. Hunt and Henriques, Inc., no. 2:19-cv-00468-VAP-SS (C.D. Cal) (application approved 3/1/19); Vargo v. ULRS, no. 2:19-cv-00996-MWF-KES (C.D. Cal.) (application approved 3/1/19); and Schneider v. Rash, Curtis and Associates, no. 2:19-cv-01119-MWF-SK (C.D. Cal.) (application approved 2/14/19). On March 1, 2019, Mr. Volheim's application to proceed pro hac vice was denied in Baker v. Nelson and Kennard, no. 2:19-cv-01479-PA-PLA (C.D. Cal.) upon the court finding that his previously filed applications indicate that he is regularly practicing in California.

The Supreme Court has described a pro hac vice attorney as one time or occasional practitioners. Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 647 (1987). The right to appear pro hac vice is not absolute and a court may deny the application by setting forth reasons for the denial. United States v. Ries, 100 F.3d 1469, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1996). Upon review of the records of the court, Mr. Volheim has appeared pro hac vice in thirteen cases in the federal courts of California during the past two years which is more than occasional practice within the state. See Mendoza v. Golden West Savings Association Services Co., No. CV 09-1200 GAF (VBKx), 2009 WL 2050786 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2009) (finding nine pending cases in the district and three other cases pending in federal districts in California to be regular practice that disqualifies an attorney from pro hac admission); Guguni v. Chertoff, No. C 08-1850 JL, 2008 WL 2080788, at *1 (N.D. Cal. May 14, 2008) (appearing in five other cases in the district). Accordingly, the Court finds that Mr. Volheim has been regularly practicing in California and is not entitled to be admitted pro hac vice in this action.

Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

IT IS SO ORDERED.