State of Hawaii v. Trump
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE KEVIN S.C. CHANG on 3/14/2017. Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice Granted : 1) Seth D. Fiur [doc. no. 177 ]; 2) Steven E. Obus [doc. no. 178 ]; 3) Tiffany M. Woo[doc. no. 179 ]; and 4) Terrance J. Nolan [doc. no. 180 ] for party Amicus Curiae New York University. (ecs, )CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
STATE OF HAWAII; ISMAIL
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his
official capacity as President
of the United States; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY; JOHN F. KELLY, in
his official capacity as
Secretary of Homeland
Security; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
STATE; REX TILLERSON, in his
official capacity as Secretary
of State; UNITED STATES OF
) CIVIL NO. 17-00050 DKW-KSC
) ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO
) APPEAR PRO HAC VICE
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE
On March 13, 2017, the following attorneys filed
Motions to Appear Pro Hac Vice:
1) Seth D. Fiur [doc. no.
177]; 2) Steven E. Obus [doc. no. 178]; 3) Tiffany M. Woo
[doc. no. 179]; and 4) Terrance J. Nolan [doc. no. 180].
The Court finds that the Motions satisfy the
requirements set forth in Rule 83.1(e) of the Local Rules of
Practice for the U.S. District Court for the District of
Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the Motions and will
permit the aforementioned attorneys to appear before this
Court in this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Honolulu, Hawaii, March 14, 2017.
Kevin S.C. Chang
United States Magistrate Judge
CIVIL NO. 17-00050 DKW-KSC; STATE, ET AL. V. TRUMP, ET AL.; ORDER GRANTING
MOTIONS TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE
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?