Marcus et al v. Apple Inc.

Filing 37

ORDER DENYING 36 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY OMAR ROSALES.(whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/25/2014)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

URIEL MARCUS and BENEDICT
VERCELES, on behalf of others
similarly situated,

12
13
14

No. C 14-03824 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER DENYING PRO HAC
VICE APPLICATION OF
ATTORNEY OMAR ROSALES

APPLE INC,
Defendant.
/

15
16

The pro hac vice application of Attorney Omar Rosales (Dkt. No. 36) is DENIED for

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

identifies the state of bar membership — such as “the bar of Texas” — is inadequate under the

22

local rule because it fails to identify a specific court (such as the Supreme Court of Texas).

23

While the application fee does not need to be paid again, the application cannot be processed

24

until a corrected form is submitted.

25
26

IT IS SO ORDERED.

27
28

Dated: November 25, 2014.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE