Garcia, et al v. Veneman, et al

Filing 383

ORDER DENYING Counsel's Pro Hac Vice Application signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 4/6/2016. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GUADALUPE L. GARCIA, et al.,

12
13
14
15
16

Case No. 1:16-cv-282 AWI-BAM

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING COUNSEL’S PRO HAC
VICE APPLICATION

v.
THOMAS J VILSACK, Secretary of
United States Department of Agriculture,

(Doc. 380).

Defendants.

17

Before the Court is the Application for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice, filed by

18

Attorney Phillip L. Fraas’, seeking to appear on behalf of Plaintiff Gloria Moralez in this matter.

19

(Doc. 380). Mr. Fraas’ application seeks leave to appear without associating local counsel.

20

Under the pro hac vice rule, an attorney not admitted to practice before this Court, may be

21

permitted to do so for a specific action. L.R. 180(b)(2). However, Local Rule 180(b)(2)(ii)

22

provides that to be eligible for admission to practice before this court, the attorney shall designate

23

in the application a member of the Bar of this Court with whom the Court and opposing counsel

24

may readily communicate regarding that attorney’s conduct of the action and upon whom service

25

shall be made. The attorney shall submit with such application the name, address, telephone

26

number, and consent of such designee. L.R. 180(b)(2)(ii).

27

In a supporting declaration, Mr. Fraas provides evidence that he is a licensed attorney

28

living in Alexandria, Virginia and he is admitted to practice in the U.S. District Court for the
1

1

District of Columbia. See Declaration of Phillip L. Fraas (“Fraas Decl.”), ¶ 2 (Doc. 380). Mr.

2

Fraas, however, has been unable to locate local counsel willing to support his pro hac vice

3

admission. Mr. Fraas declares that he has made diligent efforts to locate a local lawyer who is a

4

member of the Bar of this Court to serve as local counsel in this matter. Fraas Decl., ¶ 5. While

5

he has located attorneys that could serve as local counsel, they have not returned his phone calls

6

or emails. He further explains that his client, Ms. Moralez, is indigent and is therefore unable to

7

pay the fees of a lawyer who would serve as local counsel. Fraas Decl., ¶ 6.

8

Mr. Fraas requests leave to waive local counsel.

For those reasons,

9

Pursuant to Local Rule 180(b)(2)(ii), in the absence of local co-counsel, Mr. Fraas may

10

not appear pro hac vice in this case. The local rule’s requirement that pro hac vice attorneys

11

appear alongside local counsel is not an empty formality. It serves as a safeguard thereby

12

assuring the Court that pro hac vice attorneys are well-informed of the rules of the United States

13

District Court for the Eastern District of California. Moreover, associating with local counsel is

14

not an impossible hurdle. By his own declaration, Mr. Fraas has located some attorneys who may

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

be willing to serve as local counsel, but he is still awaiting a response. The Court encourages Mr.
Fraas to continue his efforts to find local counsel willing to endorse his pro hac vice application.
In the interim, the Court declines to waive the local counsel requirement at this time.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pro hac vice application of Phillip L.
Fraas is DENIED without prejudice until he associates with counsel who is actively admitted to
practice in this Court and submits such application with the required information as required by
Local Rule 180(b)(2)(ii).
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue a refund of Mr. Fraas’ pro hac vice
admission fee.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

April 6, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28
2