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
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?