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.]

Download PDF
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?