Little v. Norfolk Southern Railway Company

Filing 4

ORDER denying 3 Plaintiff's Motion for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice. Plaintiff's counsel Mr. McDonald has 30 days to associate with local counsel and seek pro hac vice admission to this Court. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 10/29/14. (khm)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:14-cv-00278-MR-DLH

RYAN D. LITTLE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
NORFOLK SOUTHERN RAILWAY
)
COMPANY,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion
for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice. [Doc. 3]. In the motion, Kerry R.
McDonald states that he has been retained as counsel by the Plaintiff to
seek personal injury damages pursuant to the provisions of 45 U.S.C. §51,
et seq., the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. [Id.].
The Court will deny the Plaintiff’s counsel’s Motion for Special
Admission Pro Hac Vice. [Doc. 3]. As noted in Local Rule 83.1(C)(1) for
the Western District of North Carolina, “[s]pecial, pro hac vice, and nunc
pro tunc admissions are discretionary . . .” LCvR 83.1. “It is well settled
that permission to a nonresident attorney, who has not been admitted to
practice in a court, to appear pro hac vice in a case there pending is not a

right but a privilege, the granting of which is a matter of grace resting in the
sound discretion of the presiding judge.” Thomas v. Cassidy, 249 F.2d 91,
92 (4th Cir. 1957) (citing 5 Am. Jur. p. 572; Manning v. Roanoke & T.R. Co.,
122 N.C. 824, 28 S.E. 963; Youmans v. Hanna, 35 N.D. 479, Ann. Cas.
1917E, 263; Note 24 L.R.A., N.S., 754). Further, “[t]here is grave doubt
whether the denial of such [pro hac vice] permission is appealable, since
what is denied is not a right but a mere privilege.” See Thomas, 249 F.2d
at 92 (upholding the judge’s denial of pro hac vice admission where the
judge’s findings were not clearly wrong and there was no abuse of
discretion on the judge’s part).
While special admission is contemplated by the Local Rules, see
LCvR 83.1(B)(2), it is the exception rather than the rule. The Court notes
the essential importance of the assistance of local counsel to a nonresident
attorney handling matters in this district. Local counsel play an integral role
in assisting nonresident attorneys with competent representation of clients
in this Court. Counsel has stated that he has previously appeared in this
Court. The last case in which he so appeared, however, was closed in
1996. This indicates that he is likely unfamiliar with the requirements and
regular practice in this Court. For these reasons, this case warrants the

2

association of local counsel, especially due to its importance and the
significance of its amount in controversy.
ORDER
Accordingly, IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s
Motion for Special Admission Pro Hac Vice [Doc. 3] is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s counsel Mr. McDonald
has thirty (30) days to associate with local counsel and seek pro hac vice
admission to this Court. If Mr. McDonald fails to seek such admission
within thirty (30) days of the date of this Order, this action will be dismissed
without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

3