Austin et al v. Taylor et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley denying 21 Motion to Substitute Attorney. (ahm, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/18/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6

7

LARRY J AUSTIN, et al.,

Case No. 15-cv-00162-JSC

Plaintiffs,
8
v.

ORDER RE: PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION
TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY

9
10

GRAHAM TAYLOR, et al.,

Re: Dkt. Nos. 21, 22

Defendants.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13

On November 4, 2015, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ notice of substitution of attorney for

14

failure to comply with the local rules. (Dkt. No. 20.) In response, Plaintiffs filed a renewed

15

motion to substitute wherein Plaintiff Larry Austin requests permission to represent himself pro

16

se, and Plaintiffs Furama Los Angeles, Inc., and Dragon Charm, LLC, seek to be represented by

17

attorney John E. Williams. (Dkt. No. 21.) Mr. Williams, however, is not admitted in this district

18

and thus has also filed a motion for leave to appear pro hac vice. (Dkt. No. 22.) The request for

19

substitution of counsel for Plaintiffs Furama Los Angeles, Inc., and Dragon Charm, LLC, is

20

DENIED without prejudice.

21

Under Civil Local Rule 11-3(a)(3) an attorney may proceed pro hac vice if he or she meets

22

certain qualifications including “[t]hat an attorney, identified by name and office address, who is a

23

member of the bar of this Court in good standing and who maintains an office within the State of

24

California, is designated as co-counsel.” Although the pro hac vice form indicates that Plaintiffs’

25

current attorney James Braden will act as co-counsel, Mr. Braden states in the motion for

26

substitution that he “will not be deemed an attorney of record, save only in the event that Williams

27

become incapacitated or otherwise unable to continue filling his representational duties.” (Dkt.

28

No. 21 at ¶ 8.) This is inconsistent with the requirements for pro hac vice status. If Mr. Braden is

1

to be the local counsel required under Rule 11-3(a)(3), then he is local co-counsel of record and

2

cannot attach any caveats to his appearance as such.

3

Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ motion for substitution is denied without prejudice to renewal in

4

accordance with this Order on or before November 25, 2015. The Court will take no action on

5

Mr. William’s application to appear pro hac vice until Plaintiffs address the issue raised herein.

6

The Court’s November 4, 2015 Order also struck Plaintiffs’ motion for an extension of

7

time to file their amended complaint; however, Plaintiffs have not filed an amended complaint.

8

They shall do so on or before November 25, 2015.

9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 18, 2015

12
________________________
JACQUELINE SCOTT CORLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

13

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2