Infante v. Luxottica Retail North America

Filing 13

ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY ANDREW FRIEDMAN by Hon. William Alsup denying 8 Motion for Pro Hac Vice.(whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 9/15/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 KATHLEEN INFANTE, as an individual and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 12 13 14 Plaintiffs, ORDER DENYING PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF ATTORNEY ANDREW FRIEDMAN v. LUXOTTICA RETAIL, Defendant. / 15 16 No. C 17-05145 WHA The pro hac vice application of Attorney Andrew Friedman (Dkt. No. 8) is DENIED for 17 failing to comply with Local Rule 11-3. The local rule requires that an applicant certify that “he 18 or she is an active member in good standing of the bar of a United States Court or of the highest 19 court of another State or the District of Columbia, specifying such bar” (emphasis added). 20 Filling out the pro hac vice form from the district court website such that it only identifies the 21 state of bar membership — such as “the bar of the District of Columbia” — is inadequate under 22 the local rule because it fails to identify a specific court. While the application fee does not need 23 to be paid again, the application cannot be processed until a corrected form is submitted. 24 25 IT IS SO ORDERED. 26 27 28 Dated: September 15, 2017. 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?