Avery Dennison Corporation v. 3M Company et al
Filing
7
EX PARTE APPLICATION for attorney M. Sean Royall to Appear Pro Hac Vice (PHV FEE NOT PAID.) filed by Defendants 3M Company, 3M Innovative Properties Company. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order Order on Application of Non-Resident Attorney to Appear in a Specific Case, # 2 Supplement Certificate of Good Standing, # 3 Supplement Copy of check in payment of fee)(Flores, Daniel) [Transferred from California Central on 2/3/2011.]
Avery Dennison Corporation v. 3M Company et al
Doc. 7 Att. 1
CLEAR FORM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
AVERY DENNISON CORPORATION
Plaintiff(s) CASE NUMBER
CV 10-7931 MRP (RZx)
v.
3M COMPANY and 3M INNOVATIVE PROPERTIES COMPANY
Defendant(s).
ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON-RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE ,
The Court, having reviewed the accompanying Application of M. Sean Royall
Applicant's Name
of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100 Dallas, Texas 75201-6912
Firm Name / Address
(214) 698-3100
Telephone Number
SRoyall@gibsondunn.com
E-mail Address
for permission to appear and participate in the above-entitled action on behalf of G Plaintiff
3M Company and 3M Innovative Properties Co.
G Defendant
and the designation of Daniel S. Floyd, SBN 123819
Local Counsel Designee /State Bar Number
of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP, 333 South Grand Avenue, Los Angeles, California 90071-3197
Local Counsel Firm / Address
(213) 229-7000
Telephone Number
DFloyd@gibsondunn.com
E-mail Address
as local counsel, hereby ORDERS the Application be: G GRANTED G DENIED. Fee, if paid, shall be returned by the Clerk. G DENIED. For failure to pay the required Pro Hac Vice appearance fee.
Dated U. S. District Judge/U.S. Magistrate Judge
G64 ORDER (11/10)
ORDER ON APPLICATION OF NON-RESIDENT ATTORNEY TO APPEAR IN A SPECIFIC CASE
Dockets.Justia.com
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?