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)

Download PDF
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

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?