United States of America v. Approximately 1439 Sabre Defence Industries M16 A2, A3, and A4 5.56 caliber machine guns et al

Filing 34

ORDER denying 32 Zeta Capital Limited's Motion for Leave. Signed by Magistrate Judge Dennis Howell on 6/9/2017. (khm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
1:16 cv 359
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
Approximately 1439 Sabre Defence
)
Industries M16 A2, A3, and A4 5.56
)
Caliber machine guns; et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER has come before the undersigned pursuant to Zeta Capital
Limited’s Motion for Leave (#32). In the motion, the claimant Zeta requests
permission of the Court to permit Ernest B. Williams IV, who has been admitted to
this Court to practice pro hac vice (#18) to appear without local counsel David A.
Lloyd. At the call of this matter on for hearing, it appeared Mr. Williams was
present, the Government was present through AUSA Benjamin Bain-Creed. In the
motion, which was filed by Attorney Lisa M. Rosado, Ms. Rosado states that on
June 5, 2017 Mr. Williams and Mr. Lloyd discovered that the Local Rules of the
Western District of North Carolina requires local counsel to accompany a pro hac
vice admittee at all hearings unless otherwise permitted by the Court. The motion
further states that Mr. Lloyd was leaving for Germany and could not accompany Mr.

Williams to the hearing of this matter which was scheduled for June 6, 2017.
Discussion. An initial examination of the motion showed that the motion did
not reflect counsel for the claimant had consulted with Mr. Bain-Creed as required
by LCvR 7.1(B). The Court provided Mr. Creed the Court’s copy of the claimant’s
motion.
LCvR 83.1(B)(1) provides as follows:
Pro Hac Vice Admissions. A pro hac vice admission is defined as an
admission to the Bar of this Court in a particular case by an attorney
who is a member in good standing of the Bar of the United States
District Court, the Bar of the highest Court of any state, or the District
of Columbia Bar. Such a candidate for admission must associate local
counsel and be accompanied by local counsel at all hearings unless
otherwise permitted by the Court.
On January 6, 2017, Mr. Lloyd filed an Application for Admission to Practice
Pro Hac Vice (#13) on behalf of Mr. Williams. In the Application, Mr. Lloyd stated
“the undersigned movant will serve as co-counsel in these proceedings and will
attend all hearings with the proposed admittee unless otherwise permitted by the
court.” The undersigned entered an Order (#18) allowing the motion and stated in
the Order, “that Ernest B. Williams, IV is admitted to practice pro hac vice, before
the Bar of this court while associated with David A. Lloyd.”
On April 10, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a Motion for Stay (#28). On April 24,
2017, counsel for the claimant filed Zeta Capital Limited’s Response in Opposition
to the United States of America’s Motion for Stay (#30) and requested oral

argument. On May 11, 2017, pursuant to this request, the undersigned scheduled a
hearing of the motion and the response of Zeta Capital Limited. The hearing was
set for June 6, 2017 at 9:00 a.m.
It appears from the records in this cause, Mr. Williams and Mr. Lloyd knew
and understood as early as January 6, 2017 when there was filed the Application for
Admission to Practice Pro Hac Vice, that Mr. Lloyd would be required by the Court
to be present with Mr. Williams at all hearings. The Order entered by this Court
requires such attendance. Local Rule of Civil Procedure 83.1(B)(1) requires local
counsel attend all hearings. The undersigned finds that due to the fact that Mr.
Williams and Mr. Lloyd have understood since January 6, 2017 that Mr. Lloyd’s
attendance would be required as set forth of their understanding of that requirement
in writing, that good cause does not exist to grant Zeta Capital’s motion for leave.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that Zeta Capital Limited’s Motion for
Leave (#32) is DENIED.
Signed: June 9, 2017