Various, Inc. v. Jedi Technologies, Inc.

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATIONS, Motions terminated: 12 11 10 . Signed by Judge Alsup on 4/19/16. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 4/19/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

VARIOUS, INC.,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.
JEDI TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,

ORDER DENYING PRO
HAC VICE APPLICATIONS

Defendant.
/

14
15

No. C 16-01833 WHA

The pro hac vice applications of Attorneys Ralph A. Dengler (Dkt. No. 10), Frank M.

16

Gasparo (Dkt. No. 11), and Gianna E. Cricco-Lizza (Dkt. No. 12), are DENIED for failing to

17

comply with Local Rule 11-3. The local rule requires that an applicant certify that “he or she is

18

an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest court of

19

another State or the District of Columbia, specifying such bar” (emphasis added). Filling out the

20

pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it only identifies the state of bar

21

membership — such as “the bar of the State of New York” — is inadequate under the local rule

22

because it fails to identify a specific court. While the application fees do not need to be paid

23

again, the applications cannot be processed until corrected forms are submitted.

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: April 19, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE