Filed: Nov. 27, 2018
Latest Update: Nov. 27, 2018
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of D'Amore et al. v. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC et al., case number 2:18-cv-01990-JCM-VCF. On November 13, 2018, petitioners David R. Markham, Malgorzata K. Realin, and Michael J. Morphew each filed separate verified petitions for permission to practice pro hac vice. (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11). The applications before the court reflect that the petitioners signed their applications in Clark County, Nevada
Summary: ORDER JAMES C. MAHAN , District Judge . Presently before the court is the matter of D'Amore et al. v. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC et al., case number 2:18-cv-01990-JCM-VCF. On November 13, 2018, petitioners David R. Markham, Malgorzata K. Realin, and Michael J. Morphew each filed separate verified petitions for permission to practice pro hac vice. (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11). The applications before the court reflect that the petitioners signed their applications in Clark County, Nevada...
More
ORDER
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court is the matter of D'Amore et al. v. Caesars Enterprise Services, LLC et al., case number 2:18-cv-01990-JCM-VCF.
On November 13, 2018, petitioners David R. Markham, Malgorzata K. Realin, and Michael J. Morphew each filed separate verified petitions for permission to practice pro hac vice. (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11).
The applications before the court reflect that the petitioners signed their applications in Clark County, Nevada. However, the notaries attest that the petitioners signed the applications in San Diego, California. Accordingly, all three petitions fail to provide satisfactory signatures.
In accordance with the foregoing, the court denies all three verified petitions (ECF Nos. 9, 10, 11). See LR IA 11-2(h) ("The court may grant or deny a petition to practice under this rule."). Petitioners shall file, within ten (10) days of the entry of this order, verified petitions that fully comply with the applicable local rules. Failure to timely comply will result in "the striking of any and all documents previously filed by the attorney." LR IA 11-2(j).
Accordingly,
IT IS SO ORDERED.
