CASTRO v. TRI MARINE FISH COMPANY, C17-8RSL. (2017)
Court: District Court, D. Washington
Number: infdco20170317h11
Visitors: 5
Filed: Mar. 16, 2017
Latest Update: Mar. 16, 2017
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE APPEARANCE AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN ITS ENTIRETY ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion to strike the notice of appearance of plaintiff's counsel William Banning and to strike plaintiff's motion to remand in its entirety. Dkt. # 18. At the time he filed plaintiff's motion to remand, Dkt. # 11, Mr. Banning, an attorney licensed in California, was not admitted to appear pro hac vice before this
Summary: ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE APPEARANCE AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN ITS ENTIRETY ROBERT S. LASNIK , District Judge . This matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion to strike the notice of appearance of plaintiff's counsel William Banning and to strike plaintiff's motion to remand in its entirety. Dkt. # 18. At the time he filed plaintiff's motion to remand, Dkt. # 11, Mr. Banning, an attorney licensed in California, was not admitted to appear pro hac vice before this ..
More
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE APPEARANCE AND PLAINTIFF'S MOTION IN ITS ENTIRETY
ROBERT S. LASNIK, District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court on defendants' motion to strike the notice of appearance of plaintiff's counsel William Banning and to strike plaintiff's motion to remand in its entirety. Dkt. # 18. At the time he filed plaintiff's motion to remand, Dkt. # 11, Mr. Banning, an attorney licensed in California, was not admitted to appear pro hac vice before this Court. Plaintiff's motion to remand was signed only by Mr. Banning, not by plaintiff's local counsel. Mr. Banning has since been granted leave to appear pro hac vice. Dkt. # 16.
The Court reminds counsel that leave to appear pro hac vice must be sought and granted for each separate case in which an attorney not licensed in Washington hopes to appear. See Local Civil Rule 83.1(d). In this instance, however, Mr. Banning's omission appears to result from administrative oversight rather than from any deliberate evasion. See Dkt. ## 24, 24-1. Given that Mr. Banning now appears pro hac vice and that plaintiff has been represented at all times by local counsel, striking Mr. Banning's appearance and plaintiff's motion at this stage would be a futile elevation of form over substance.
For all the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion to strike (Dkt. # 18) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
