O'Shea et al v. 24 Hour Fitness USA, Inc.

Filing 73

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF JAY EDELSON, ESQ. Signed by Judge Jeffrey S. White on 2/2/17. Show Cause Response due by 2/9/2017. Responses due by 2/16/2017. Replies due by 2/23/2017. (jjoS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/2/2017) Modified on 2/2/2017 (jjoS, COURT STAFF).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 KEVIN O'SHEA, et al., Plaintiffs, 8 9 10 v. 24 HOUR FITNESS USA, INC., Defendant. United States District Court Northern District of California 11 Case No. 16-cv-01668-JSW Consolidated Case No. 16-cv-02359-JSW ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION OF JAY EDELSON, ESQ. Re: Dkt. No. 72 12 13 14 Jay Edelson, Esq., has filed an application for admission pro hac vice. This Court’s Civil Local Rule 11-3(b) provides: 15 Disqualification from Pro Hac Vice Appearance. Unless authorized by an Act of Congress or by an order of the assigned judge, an applicant is not eligible for permission to practice pro hac vice if the applicant: 16 17 (1) Resides in the State of California; or 18 (2) Is regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of California. This disqualification shall not be applicable if the pro hac vice applicant (i) has been a resident of California for less than one year; (ii) has registered with, and completed all required applications for admission to, the State Bar of California; and 19 20 21 (3) Has officially registered to take or is awaiting his or her results from the California State Bar exam. 22 23 24 N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 11-3(b). With regard to whether Mr. Edelson is regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State 25 of California, a search of this Court’s electronic filing system indicates that Mr. Edelson is listed 26 as an attorney in 57 cases, including this case, filed in this Court between 2006 and the present. 27 The Court does not know whether Mr. Edelson practices in other federal or state courts in the State 28 of California. 1 Accord dingly, Plaint tiffs are HER REBY ORD DERED TO S SHOW CAU why the Court USE e 2 sho ould not deny Mr. Edelso application for adm on’s mission pro h vice purs hac suant to Civi Local Rule il e 3 11-3(b)(2). See generally Ang v. Bimb Bakeries U e A bo USA, Inc., N 13-cv-01196-WHO, 2 No. 2015 WL 4 147 74866, ** 2- (N.D. Cal Jan. 14, 20 -3 l. 015) (overrul ling objectio to pro ha vice appli ons ac ication); 5 Gu uguni v. Cher rtoff, No. C-08-1850 JL, 2008 WL 2 , 2080788, * 1 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (vaca ating order 6 gra anting applic cation to app pro hac vice). In ad pear ddition to the other issues Plaintiffs m address e may 7 in response to this order, Plaintiffs shal submit a d r t ll declaration re egarding Mr Edelson’s practice of r. 8 law in other fed w deral or state courts in th State of C e he California. 9 By February 9, 2017, Plaintiffs shall either file a respon to this or nse rder to show cause or w wit thdraw Mr. Edelson’s pr hac vice application. If Plaintiffs elect to file a response t the order E ro a to 11 United States District Court Northern District of California 10 to show cause, Defendant may respond to Plaintiff filing by F s m d fs’ February 16, 2017. By F February 23, 12 201 Plaintiffs may file a reply to any response fil by Defen 17, s led ndant. The m matter shall b submitted be d 13 upo the filing of Plaintiffs reply, unle the Cour schedules a hearing. on s’ ess rt 14 15 IT IS SO ORDER S RED. Da ated: Februar 2, 2017 ry 16 17 JE EFFREY S. W WHITE Un nited States D District Judg ge 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?