Ribeiro v. Sedgwick LLP

Filing 43

ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY DAVID W. SANFORD by Hon. William Alsup denying 36 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

TRACI RIBEIRO,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13

No. C 16-04507 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
SEDGWICK LLP,
Defendant.
/

14

ORDER DENYING PRO
HAC VICE APPLICATION
OF ATTORNEY DAVID W.
SANFORD

15

The pro hac vice application of Attorney David W. Sanford (Dkt. No. 36) is DENIED for

16

failing to comply with Local Rule 11-3. The local rule requires that an applicant certify that “he

17

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

18

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

19

Filling out the pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it only identifies the

20

state of bar membership — such as “the bar of the District of Columbia” — is inadequate under

21

the local rule because it fails to identify a specific court. While the application fee does not need

22

to be paid again, the application cannot be processed until a corrected form is submitted.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.

25
26
27
28

Dated: November 10, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE