Stephanie Pamintuan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company et al
Filing
61
ORDER VACATING ( 12 , 20 ) PRO HAC VICE ADMISSIONS AND DIRECTING PLAINTIFFS COUNSEL TO FILE AMENDED APPLICATIONS. Attorneys Megan J McKenzie and Munir R. Meghjee terminated. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 7/14/2016. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/14/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
STEPHANIE PAMINTUAN,
Plaintiff,
8
9
10
United States District Court
Northern District of California
11
Case No. 16-cv-00254-HSG
v.
BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY,
et al.,
Defendants.
ORDER VACATING PRO HAC VICE
ADMISSIONS AND DIRECTING
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL TO FILE
AMENDED APPLICATIONS
Re. Dkt. Nos. 12 & 20
12
13
The Court previously granted two pro hac vice applications filed by Munir Meghjee and
14
Megan McKenzie, counsel for Plaintiff Stephanie Pamintuan (“Plaintiff”). Dkt. Nos. 12 & 20. In
15
their applications, Mr. Meghjee and Ms. McKenzie designated Gary Wilson as local counsel as
16
required under Civil Local Rules 3-4(a)(2) and 11-3(a)(3). Mr. Wilson later filed a letter with the
17
Court, stating that he believes his local counsel designation may be improper because he does not
18
personally maintain an office in California, only his firm does. Dkt. No. 56. To help rectify this
19
error, two members of Mr. Wilson’s firm who maintain an office in California filed a notice of
20
appearance. Dkt. No. 55. The Court appreciates Mr. Wilson’s candor and professionalism. To
21
resolve the issue, the Court hereby VACATES its earlier orders approving Mr. Meghjee and Ms.
22
McKenzie’s pro hac vice applications, Dkt. Nos. 12 & 20, and DIRECTS those attorneys to file
23
amended applications designating Mr. Wilson’s colleagues as local counsel by July 15, 2016.
24
25
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: 7/14/2016
26
27
28
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
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?