Rogers et al v. Wilmington Trust Company et al

Filing 24

ORDER DENYING Pro Hac Vice Application of Thomas L. Allen signed by Magistrate Judge Stanley A. Boone on 7/10/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 FRIEDA MAE ROGERS, et al., 11 Case No. 1:17-cv-00392-AWI-SAB Plaintiffs, 12 ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF THOMAS L. ALLEN v. 13 (ECF Nos. 20, 22, 23) WILMINGTON TRUST COMPANY, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 On June 28, 2017, Thomas L. Allen, attorney for Defendants, filed an application for 17 18 admission to practice pro hac vice under the provisions of Local Rule 180(b)(2) of the Local 19 Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for this District. (ECF No. 20.) Upon 20 review of Mr. Allen’s application the Court found that he was admitted to practice in California 1 21 on July 29, 2003. (ECF No. 20 at 2.) Since it was unclear to the Court why an attorney who is an active member of the State 22 23 Bar of California and eligible to practice law in California would seek admission pro hac vice in 24 this case instead of seeking admission to the Bar of this Court, an order issued requiring Mr. 25 Allen to explain why he was seeking admission pro hac vice in this case instead of seeking 26 admission to the Bar of this Court. On July 5, 2017, Mr. Allen filed a response stating that he is 27 1 A review of the State Bar of California’s website indicates that Mr. Allen is active and may practice law in 28 California. See 1 1 no longer seeking admission pro hac vice, but has submitted a petition for admission to this 2 Court. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Thomas L. Allen’s application for 3 4 admission to practice pro hac vice is DENIED. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: July 10, 2017 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?