Illumina, Inc. et al v. QIAGEN, N.V. et al
Filing
118
ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY CLAIRE K. COMFORT by Hon. William Alsup denying 117 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/14/2016)
1
2
3
4
5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9
12
No. C 16-2788 WHA
Plaintiffs,
11
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
10
ILLUMINA, INC., and ILLUMINA
CAMBRIDGE LTD.,
v.
15
QIAGEN, N.V., QIAGEN GmbH,
QIAGEN GAITHERSBURG, INC.,
QIAGEN SCIENCES, LLC, QIAGEN
INC. (USA), QIAGEN REDWOOD CITY,
INC., and INTELLIGENT BIOSYSTEMS, INC.,
16
Defendants.
13
14
ORDER DENYING
PRO HAC VICE
APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY
CLAIRE K. COMFORT
/
17
18
The pro hac vice application of Attorney Claire F. Comfort (Dkt. No. 117) is DENIED for
19
failing to comply with Local Rule 11-3. The local rule requires that an applicant certify that “he
20
or she is an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest
21
court of another State or the District of Columbia, specifying such bar” (emphasis added).
22
Filling out the pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it only identifies the
23
state of bar membership — such as “the bar of New York” — is inadequate under the local rule
24
because it fails to identify a specific court. While the application fee does not need to be paid
25
again, the application cannot be processed until a corrected form is submitted.
26
IT IS SO ORDERED.
27
28
Dated: September 14, 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?