John Doe v. Montana State University et al
ORDER granting 13 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice Acknowledgment of PHV Order due by 6/27/2017. Copy of Order mailed to PHV Counsel. Affidavit provided to S. N. for adding attorney information. Signed by Judge Sam E Haddon on 6/12/2017. (HEG)
JUN 12 2017
Clerk, U.S. District Court
District Of Montana
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
No. CV 17-15-BU-SEH
MONTANA STATE UNIVERSITY,
DR. WADED CURZADO, DR.
ROBERT MOKWA, JYL SHAFFER,
JAMES SLETTEN, AND
KATHARINE KUJAWA, employees
of Montana State University, sued in
his or her official and individual
capacity, jointly and severally,
Plaintiff John Doe has moved for admission of Louise T. Gitcheva, Esq. to
appear pro hac vice in this case with Matthew G. Monforton, Esq. ofMonforton
Law Offices, PLLC, Bozeman, Montana, to act as local counsel. Gitcheva's
application appears to be in compliance with L.R. 83 .1 (d).
Plaintiffs Unopposed Motion for Pro Hae Vice of Louise Gitcheva 1 is
GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
Local counsel shall exercise the responsibilities required by
L.R. 83.l(d)(S) and must serve as either lead or co-lead counsel;
Either Jesse R. Binnall, Esq. or Gitcheva, but not both, may act as co-
lead counsel with Monforton;
Gitcheva must do her own work. She must do her own writing, sign
her own pleadings, motions and briefs, and, if designated co-lead counsel, must
appear and participate personally in all proceedings before this Court;
Local counsel must also sign all such pleadings, motions, briefs, and
other documents served or filed.
Admission is personal to Gitcheva; it is not an admission of her law
This Order will be withdrawn unless Gitcheva, within fifteen ( 15) days of
the date of this Order, files an acknowledgment and acceptance of his admission
under the terms set forth above.
United States District Judge
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?