Lyon v. W.W. Grainger, Inc.
Filing
26
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DIRECTED TO ATTORNEY ERICA ROCUSH. Signed by Judge Alsup on April 23, 2010. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/23/2010)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ANNE MARIE LYON, Plaintiff, v. W W GRAINGER INC, Defendant. / ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE DIRECTED TO ATTORNEY ERICA ROCUSH No. C 10-00884 WHA IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
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
After it was brought to the Court's attention that one of the counsel for defendants, Attorney Erica K. Rocush, was not on record as an attorney admitted to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Attorney Rocush was ordered to file proof of her admission no later than noon on April 15, 2010. The deadline has passed and no such proof has been filed. Additionally, Attorney Rocush filed a sworn declaration (Dkt. No. 16) to explain why defendant did not file a timely opposition to plaintiff's motion to remand this action. She stated in part: I had not received notice of the change in hearing date via email, as I normally would in a case pending in the Northern District Court. Therefore, I called the court clerk to inquire as to why I had not received such notice. At this time, I was informed, much to my surprise, that there was no record of me being admitted into the District Court for the Northern District of California. The clerk's office has contacted the Court and disputed her statement. According to the clerk's office, it initiated contact with Attorney Rocush to notify her that she was not admitted
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
to the District Court for the Northern District of California after it reviewed the pro hac vice application of Attorney Henry Galatz (Dkt. No. 5). No later than NOON ON MONDAY, APRIL 26, 2010, Attorney Rocush is ordered to explain this discrepancy under oath in the form of a declaration. She also must show cause why she failed to file proof of her admission as ordered and why she should not be sanctioned. She is additionally ordered to appear at the hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand on April 29, 2010, and should be prepared to address these issues at that time.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
United States District Court
11
For the Northern District of California
Dated: April 23, 2010.
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28
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?