Guthrie v. Hall et al

Filing 47

ORDER directing Plaintiff's Counsel to Associate Herself with Local Counsel within 7 days. Signed by Honorable Timothy D. DeGiusti on 10/30/2017. (mb)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA OTIS ANDRE GUTHRIE, Plaintiff, v. CPL DANIEL T. HALL, BADGE 342, individually, and CITY OF MUSTANG, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No. CIV-16-1148-D ORDER On June 21, 2017, counsel for Plaintiff, who practices in Texas, entered her appearance in this case [Doc. No. 24]. Pursuant to the local rules of this Court, it is incumbent upon an attorney to obtain admittance to practice here. See LCvR 83.2(a) (“The bar of this court shall consist of those attorneys admitted to practice before this court who have taken the prescribed oath and who have signed the roll of attorneys of this judicial district.”). A nonresident attorney may be admitted pro hac vice, but must associate local counsel. See LCvR 83.3 (“[w]hen representing a party in this court, any attorney who is not a resident of, and does not maintain an office in, Oklahoma shall show association with an attorney who is personally appearing in the action and who is a resident of Oklahoma and maintains a law office within the State of Oklahoma, and who has been duly and regularly admitted to practice in this court.”).1 A review of the record shows that Plaintiff’s counsel is not a member of this Court, nor has she, as prescribed by local rule, associated herself with local counsel. Accordingly, she is not admitted to practice in this case. Although the Court acknowledges counsel’s representation that she is attempting to obtain local counsel (see Pl. Mot. for Extension of Time at 1), she has had ample opportunity to do so. Accordingly, the Court directs Plaintiff’s counsel to associate herself with local counsel within seven (7) days of the date of this Order. IT IS SO ORDERED this 30th day of October 2017. 1 “The requirement that out-of-state attorneys associate with local counsel serves three important purposes: (1) members of the local bar are familiar with the rules and customs of this Court and are expected to educate pro hac vice attorneys on, and enforce, those rules and customs; (2) members of the local bar of this Court are more readily available than pro hac vice attorneys for conferences and other matters that arise in the course of litigation, and (3) the Court looks to members of the local bar to serve as a liaison between it and pro hac vice attorneys and to ensure effective communications between the Court and pro hac vice attorneys.” In re Stewart, No. 15-12215-JDL, 2017 WL 1185171, at *2 (Bankr. W.D. Okla. Mar. 29, 2017) (citing Ingemi v. Pelino & Lentz, P. C., 866 F.Supp.156, 162 (D.N.J. 1994)).

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?