Consumer Financial Protection Bureau v. Think Finance
Filing
26
ORDER granting 23 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for David Rosenberg ; granting 24 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice for Matthew Sheldon. Acknowledgment of PHV Order due by 3/13/2018. SEE ORDER FOR FULL DETAILS. Signed by Judge Brian Morris on 2/26/2018. (Copy of order mailed to counsel) (MMS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
GREAT FALLS DIVISION
CONSUMER FINANCIAL
PROTECTION BUREAU,
CV-17-127-GF-BMM
Plaintiff,
vs.
THINK FINANCE, LLC formerly
known as Think Finance, Inc.,
ORDER
Defendant.
Defendant has moved for an order allowing David Rosenberg Esq. and
Matthew S. Sheldon, Esq. to appear pro hac vice in this case with Leo S. Ward,
Esq., designated as local counsel. The applications of Mr. Rosenberg and Mr.
Sheldon appear to be in compliance with L.R. 83.1(d).
IT IS ORDERED:
Defendant’s motions to allow Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Sheldon to appear on
its behalf (Docs. 23 and 24) are GRANTED, subject to the following conditions:
1.
Local counsel shall exercise the responsibilities required by L.R.
83.1(d)(5) and must be designated as lead counsel or as co-lead counsel;
2.
Only one attorney appearing pro hac vice may act as co-lead counsel;
3.
Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Sheldon must each do their own work. Each
must do their own writing, sign their own pleadings, motions, briefs, and, if
designated co-lead counsel, must appear and participate personally in all
proceedings before the Court;
4.
Local counsel shall also sign all such pleadings, motions and briefs and
other documents served or filed; and
5.
Admission is personal to Mr. Rosenberg and Mr. Sheldon.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:
Each applicant shall file, within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order,
an acknowledgment and acceptance of their admission under the terms set
forth above.
DATED this 26th day of February, 2018.
-2-
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?