Grant Heilman Photography, Inc. v. McGraw-Hill Global Education Holdings, LLC et al

Filing 18

ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE. 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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GRANT HEILMAN PHOTOGRAPHY,
INC.,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Plaintiff,
v.
MCGRAW-HILL GLOBAL EDUCATION
HOLDINGS, LLC, et al.,

Case No.16-cv-07316-JSW
ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRO
HAC VICE APPLICATION OF
CHRISTOPHER P. BEALL, ESQ.
Re: Dkt. No. 17

Defendants.
Christopher P. Beall, Esq., has filed an application for admission pro hac vice. This
Court’s Civil Local Rule 11-3(b) provides:
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:
(1) Resides in the State of California; or
(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 (iii) has officially
registered to take or is awaiting his or her results from the California
State Bar exam.
N.D. Cal. Civil L.R. 11-3(b).

24
With regard to whether Mr. Beall is regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of
25
California, a search of this Court’s electronic filing system indicates that Mr. Beall is listed as an
26
attorney in 7 cases, including this case, filed in this Court between 2012 and the present. The
27
Court does not know whether Mr. Beall practices in other federal or state courts in the State of
28

1
2

California.
Accord
dingly, Defen
ndants are HEREBY OR
H
RDERED TO SHOW CA
O
AUSE why t Court
the

3

ould not deny Mr. Beall’ application for admiss
’s
n
sion pro hac vice pursua to Civil L
c
ant
Local Rule
sho

4

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

5

147
74866, ** 2- (N.D. Cal Jan. 14, 20
-3
l.
015) (overrul
ling objectio to pro ha vice appli
ons
ac
ication);

6

Gu
uguni v. Cher
rtoff, No. C-08-1850 JL, 2008 WL 2
,
2080788, * 1 (N.D. Cal. 2008) (vaca
ating order

7

gra
anting applic
cation to app pro hac vice). In ad
pear
ddition to the other issues Defendant may
e
ts

8

add
dress in resp
ponse to this order, Defen
ndants shall submit a declaration reg
garding Mr. Beall’s

9

pra
actice of law in other fed
w
deral or state courts in th State of Ca
he
alifornia.

10

By February 9, 2017, Defendan shall eith file a resp
nts
her
ponse to this order to sho cause or
s
ow

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

wit
thdraw Mr. Beall’s pro hac vice application. If D
B
h
Defendants elect to file a response to the order
o

12

to show cause, Plaintiff ma respond to Defendant filing by F
s
ay
o
ts’
February 16, 2017. By F
February 23,

13

201 Defendants may file a reply to an response filed by Pla
17,
ny
aintiff. The m
matter shall b submitted
be
d

14

upo the filing of Defendan reply, un
on
nts’
nless the Co schedule a hearing.
ourt
es

15
16

IT IS SO ORDER
S
RED.
Da
ated: Februar 2, 2017
ry

17
18
JE
EFFREY S. W
WHITE
Un
nited States D
District Judg
ge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2