Pellegrini v. Fresno County, California et al

Filing 12

ORDER denying 11 Pro Hac Vice Application and directing Clerk to Refund Pro Hac Vice Fee signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara A. McAuliffe on 10/6/2016. (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LILLIAN PELLEGRINI,

12
13
14
15
16
17
18

Case No. 1:16-cv-1292 LJO-BAM

Plaintiff,
ORDER DENYING COUNSEL’S PRO HAC
VICE APPLICATION

v.
FRESNO COUNTY, FRESNO COUNTY
PUBLIC GUARDIAN, FRESNO
COUNTY COUNSEL, SUPERIOR
COURT OF FRESNO, UBS FINANCIAL
SERVICES, BANK OF NY MELLON,
COMERICA INC., WEINTRAUB
TOBIN,

DIRECTING CLERK TO REFUND PRO HAC
VICE FEE
(Doc. 11).

Defendants.

19
20
21
22
23

Before the Court is attorney Beverly Pellegrini’s application to appear pro hac vice on
behalf of pro se Plaintiff Lillian Pellegrini in this matter. (Doc. 11).
Eastern District of California Local Rule 180(b) states, “(e)xcept as otherwise provided
herein, only members of the Bar of this Court shall practice in this Court.” Admission to the Bar
of this Court is limited to attorneys who are active members in good standing of the State Bar of

24

California. Local Rule 180(a). However, attorneys who are not members of this Court’s Bar may

25
appear pro hac vice. Local Rule 180(b)(2) provides:
26
27

(2) Attorneys Pro Hac Vice. An attorney who is a member in good standing of,
and eligible to practice before, the Bar of any United States Court or of the highest

28
1

1
2
3
4
5

Court of any State, or of any Territory or Insular Possession of the United States,
and who has been retained to appear in this Court may, upon application and in the
discretion of the Court, be permitted to appear and participate in a particular case.
Unless authorized by the Constitution of the United States or an Act of Congress,
an attorney is not eligible to practice pursuant to (b)(2) if any one or more 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.

6
7
8
9
10

Applicant provides evidence that she is an attorney admitted to practice in the State of
New York. However, a review of her application reveals that Ms. Pellegrini lists 3345 East
Huntington Blvd. Fresno, CA 93702 as her business address. (Doc. 11). Pursuant to Local Rule
180(b)(2)(ii), an attorney may not appear pro hac vice if he or she resides in or is regularly
employed in California. L.R. 180(b)(2)(ii). As an attorney currently living and/or practicing in

11
Fresno, California, Ms. Pellegrini is not currently eligible for pro hac vice admission.
12
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the pro hac vice application of Beverly J.
13
Pellegrini is DENIED without prejudice. Ms. Pellegrini may amend and resubmit her application;
14
15
16
17

however any future applications for admission should be accompanied by a sworn declaration and
documented proof of residency.
The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to issue a refund of Ms. Pellegrini’s pro hac vice
admission fee.

18
19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20
21

Dated:

/s/ Barbara

October 6, 2016

A. McAuliffe

_

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2