April Coyle v. Experian Information Solutions, Inc. et al

Filing 32

ORDER DENYING 31 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION by Hon. William Alsup. (whalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/30/2016)

1
2
3
4
5

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
7
8
9

APRIL COYLE,

11
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10

12
13
14

No. C 16-05674 WHA

Plaintiff,
v.
ORDER DENYING PRO
HAC VICE APPLICATION

EXPERIAN INFORMATION
SOLUTIONS, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
/

15
16

The pro hac vice application of Attorney Andrew Soukup (Dkt. No. 31) is DENIED for

17

failing to comply with Local Rule 11-3. That rule requires an applicant to certify that “he or she

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

membership — e.g., “the bar of the District of Columbia” — is inadequate under the rule

22

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

23

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

24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.

26
27
28

Dated: November 30, 2016.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE