Miller v. Facebook, Inc. et al

Filing 28

ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS. Signed by Judge Alsup on February 23, 2010. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/23/2010)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California DANIEL M. MILLER, Plaintiff, v. FACEBOOK, INC. and YAO WEI YEO, Defendants. / No. C 10-00264 WHA 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ORDER REGARDING MOTION TO DISMISS AND PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS This action was transferred from the Northern District of Georgia and assigned to the undersigned district judge on January 25, 2010 (Dkt. Nos. 18, 22). Defendant Facebook, Inc. promptly filed a motion to dismiss on February 2, 2010, with a hearing noticed for March 11 (Dkt. No. 25). Under the Civil Local Rules, an opposition to this motion should have been received by February 18, 2010. No opposition was filed. As such, the hearing on the motion was vacated and an order to show cause was issued earlier this morning (Dkt. No. 27). This afternoon, counsel for plaintiff informed the Clerk that they had not filed their opposition to the pending motion because they had yet to file their pro hac vice applications to practice in this district. Apparently, they have been unable to find local counsel for their applications pursuant to Civil Local Rule 11-3(a)(3). The Northern District of California is a national court in the sense that hundreds of out-of-state attorneys appear every year. In all of the undersigned's long experience as both a judge and practitioner, he has never encountered a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 situation where a non-resident attorney was unable to comply with local pro hac vice rules. Counsel are urged to redouble their efforts. Counsel shall have until NOON ON TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2010, to file their pro hac vice applications. If these applications properly conform to Civil Local Rule 11-3, they will be promptly approved. Assuming that these applications are received and properly submitted by this deadline, counsel shall have until THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 2010, to file their opposition to the pending motion to dismiss. If all these deadlines are met, the undersigned will file an additional order setting a deadline for defendant's reply brief (likely one week after the opposition is filed) and a hearing on the motion (likely two weeks after the opposition is filed). If, however, these deadlines are not met, defendant's motion may be granted in full. Counsel are also ordered to notify their client, Daniel Miller, of this order. Given that the Court is now aware of counsel's "explanation" regarding the missing opposition brief, the order to show cause filed earlier this morning is VACATED. United States District Court 11 For the Northern District of California 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 23, 2010. WILLIAM ALSUP UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?