Richtek Technology Corporation et al v. uPI Semiconductor Corporation et al

Filing 454

ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY AARON STAFFORD OAKLEY by Hon. William Alsup denying 452 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/8/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

12
13

v.
uPI SEMICONDUCTOR
CORPORATION, et al.,

14

ORDER DENYING PRO
HAC VICE APPLICATION
OF ATTORNEY AARON
STAFFORD OAKLEY

Defendants.
/

15
16

No. C 09-05659 WHA

Plaintiff,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

RICHTEK TECHNOLOGY
CORPORATION,

The pro hac vice application of Attorney Aaron Stafford Oakley (Dkt. No. 452) is

17

DENIED for failing to comply with Local Rule 11-3. The local rule requires that an applicant

18

certify that “he or she is an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court

19

or of the highest court of another State or the District of Columbia, specifying such bar”

20

(emphasis added). Filling out the pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it

21

only identifies the state of bar membership — such as “the bar of the State of Colorado” — is

22

inadequate under the local rule because it fails to identify a specific court. While the application

23

fee does not need to be paid again, the application cannot be processed until a corrected form is

24

submitted.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: March 8, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE