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