Huon v. Breaking Media et al
Filing
69
MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice Filing fee $ 50, receipt number 0752-6455732. (Feige, David)
Print Form
(Revised 06/08)
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR PRO HAC VICE
Case Title:
Plantiff(s)
Meanith Huon
VS.
Defendant(s)
Gawker Media, et al.
Case Number: 1:11-CV-3054
Judge: Marvin Aspen
David L. Feige
I,
hereby apply to the Court
under Local Rule 83.14 for permission to appear and participate in the above-entitled action on behalf of
Gawker Media, Jezebel.com, Nick Denton, Irin Carmon & Gaby Darbyshire
by whom I have been retained.
I am a member in good standing and eligible to practice before the following courts:
Title of Court
Date Admitted
Western District of Wisconsin
6/1991
The State of New York
8/1992
The State of Wisconsin (Voluntary Resignation (never took a case-and moved out of state))
6/1991
I have currently, or within the year preceding the date of this application, made pro hac vice applications to this
Court in the following actions:
Case Number
Date of Application
(Granted or Denied)*
Case Title
*If denied, please explain:
(Attach additional form if
necessary)
Pursuant to Local Rule 83.15(a), applicants who do not have an office within the Northern District of Illinois must designate, at the
time of filing their initial notice or pleading, a member of the bar of this Court having an office within this District upon who service of
papers may be made.
Has the applicant designated local counsel?
Yes
No
If you have not designated local counsel, Local Rule 83.15(b) provides that the designation must be made within thirty (30) days.
Has the applicant ever been:
censured, suspended, disbarred, or otherwise disciplined by any court?
Yes
No
or is the applicant currently the subject of an investigation of the
applicant's professional conduct?
Yes
No
transferred to inactive status, voluntarily withdrawn, or resigned from the
bar of nay court?
Yes
No
denied admission to the bar of any court?
Yes
No
held in contempt of court?
Yes
No
NOTE: If the answer to any of the above questions is yes, please attach a brief description of the incident(s) and the applicant's current
status before any court, or any agency thereof, where disciplinary sanctions were imposed, or where an investigation or investigations
of the applicant's conduct may have been instituted.
I have read the Rules of Professional Conduct for the Northern District of Illinois, effective November 12, 1991 (Local Rules 83.50
through 83.58), and the Standards for Professional Conduct within the Seventh Federal Judicial Circuit, effective December 15, 1992,
and will faithfully adhere to them. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
S/
10/10/11
David Feige
Date
Electronic Signature of Applicant
Last Name
Applicant's Name
Applicant's Law Firm
First Name
David
Feige
Middle Name/Initial
L.
Giskan, Solotaroff Anderson & Stewart
Street Address
Applicant's Address
Room/Suite Number
11 Broadway
City
New York
2150
State
ZIP Code
NY
10004
Work Phone Number
212 847 8315
(The pro hac vice admission fee is $100.00 for cases filed before February 1, 2001, and $50.00 for cases filed on or after that
date, and shall be paid to the Clerk. No admission under Rule 83.14 is effective until such time as the fee has been paid.)
NOTE: Attorneys seeking to appear pro hac vice may wish to consider filing a petition for admission to the general bar of the
Court. The fee for admission to the General Bar is $150.00 The fee for pro hac vice admission is $100.00 for cases filed
before February 1, 2001, and $50.00 for cases filed on or after that date. Admission to the general bar permits an attorney
to practice before this Court. Pro hac vice admission entitles an attorney to appear in a particular case only. Application
for such admission must be made in each case; and the admission fee must be paid in each case.
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?