ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal et al v. Bowen et al

Filing 31

PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 1/14/2009 ORDERING #3 Attorney James Bopp, Jr. to appear for ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, and National Organization for Marriage California - Yes on 8.(Reader, L)

Download PDF
ProtectMarriage.com - Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal et al v. Bowen et al Doc. 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION, ECF REGISTRATION AND CONSENT TO ELECTRONIC SERVICE, PROPOSED ORDER ProtectMarriage.com, et al., Plaintiff(s), Case No. 2:09-cv-00058 v. Debra Brown, et al., Defendant(s). I, attorney for and James Bopp, Jr. , Plaintiffs Protect Marriage.com ­ Yes on 8, a Project of California Renewal National Organization for Marriage California ­ Yes on 8, Sponsored by National Organization for Marriage , hereby petition for admission to practice Pro Hac Vice under the provision of Local Rule 83-180(b)(2). I understand and consent to ECF Registration and Electronic Service as detailed below and I have submitted payment in the amount of $180.00 to the Clerk, U.S. District Court. In support of this petition, I state under penalty of perjury that: My business address is: Firm Name: Address: City: State: Voice Phone: FAX Phone: Internet E-mail: Additional E-mail: I reside in City: Bopp Coleson & Bostrom_____________________________________ 1 S. Sixth Street____________________________________________ Terre Haute________________________________________________ Indiana ZIP Code: 47807__________________________ (812)_232-2434____________________________________________ (812)_235-3685____________________________________________ jboppjr@aol.com____________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ Terre Haute State: Indiana___________ PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com Dockets.Justia.com I was admitted to practice in the on October 10, 1973 Supreme Court of Indiana (court) (date). I am presently in good standing and eligible to practice in said court. I am not currently suspended or disbarred in any other court. I have x / have not o concurrently or within the year preceding this application made a pro hac vice application to this court. (If you have made a pro hac vice application to this court within the last year, list the name and case number of each matter in which an application was made, the date of application and whether granted or denied.) Cal Pro-Life Council, Inc. v. Randolph, Case No. 2:00-cv-01698-FCD-GGH. (Although my pro hac vice application in this case was made in 2000, the case is ongoing and I wish to bring this to the Court's attention)._________________________________________________ I hereby designate the following member of the Bar of this Court who is registered for ECF with whom the Court and opposing counsel may readily communicate regarding the conduct of the case and upon whom electronic notice shall also be served via the court's ECF system: Name: Firm Name: Address: City: State: Timothy D. Chandler_______________________________________________ Alliance Defense Fund_____________________________________________ 101 Parkshore Drive, Suite 100______________________________________ Folsom_________________________________________________________ CA ZIP Code: 95630___________________________ Voice Phone: (916) 932-2850__________________________________________________ FAX Phone: E-mail: (916) 932-2851__________________________________________________ tchandler@telladf.org______________________________________________ Petitioner: ____________________________________ ORDER IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 14, 2009 Dated: January 7, 2009_____ __________________________________ MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com

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?