Shewmaker et al v. Yardi Systems Inc et al

Filing 112

ORDER denying 108 Unopposed MOTION to Waive Geographic Requirement in LCR 83.1. Signed by Judge Robert S. Lasnik. (MJV)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 5 6 7 8 MADISON SHEWMAKER, et al., Plaintiff, 9 10 11 Cause No. 2:24-cv-01948-RSL ORDER v. YARDI SYSTEMS, INC., et al., Defendants. 12 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on “Defendant PRG Real Estate Management, Inc.’s 15 Unopposed Motion to Waive Geographic Requirement in LCR 83.1.” Dkt. # 81. Eric Fisher is a 16 member of the Washington bar who lives and works in Georgia. He has appeared in this 17 18 litigation on behalf of defendant PRG Real Estate Management, Inc., as authorized by LCR 19 83.1(d)(1), but now seeks to sponsor the pro hac vice applications of two of his colleagues from 20 Chicago and Atlanta. 21 22 Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 83.1(d)(1), an attorney who neither resides in nor maintains 23 an office for the practice of law in this district may, upon application and a showing of a 23 particular need, appear and participate in the case pro hac vice. The client must, however, also 25 26 be represented by local counsel who has a physical office within the boundaries of the district 27 and is admitted to practice before this Court. Simply being a member of the Washington bar is 28 insufficient to establish “local counsel” status. Local counsel has discrete and specific duties, ORDER - 1 1 most of which require familiarity with the local rules and the judges of this district as well as 2 proximity to the courthouse. LCR 83.1(d)(2). Hence the physical office requirement. 3 4 Mr. Fisher argues that he should be permitted to fill the role of local counsel because he 5 “is admitted to practice in the Western District of Washington[] and regularly appears before 6 courts in this District.” Dkt. # 108 at 2. The CM/ECF system shows that Mr. Fisher has appeared 7 8 in only one other case in this district. See Fifteen Twenty-One Second Avenue Condominium 9 Association v. Viracon LLC, C23-1999BJR. Another lawyer with a physical office in Seattle has 10 also appeared on behalf of his client in that case: that lawyer appropriately signed the pro hac 11 12 13 14 vice applications in her role as local counsel. As discussed above, simply being admitted to practice in this district does not confer “local counsel” status. This district is committed to maintaining a high degree of professionalism 15 16 and civility among the lawyers practicing before the court and requires local counsel to review 17 and sign all filings, ensure that the filings comply with the local rules, and remind pro hac vice 18 counsel of this district’s expectations. LCR 83.1(d)(2). Counsel who do not regularly practice in 19 20 the Western District of Washington may not fully comprehend the magnitude of their 21 responsibilities and may not be well-placed to serve the functions assigned to local counsel. In 22 addition, the district requires local counsel to be authorized and prepared to handle courtroom 23 23 appearances if pro hac vice counsel is unable to be present on the date scheduled by the court. 25 Counsel who reside on the other side of the country lack the proximity to the courthouse this 26 part of the rule requires. 27 28 ORDER - 2 1 2 While the Court has, on occasion, granted requests to waive the physical office requirement, each request must be considered on the totality of the circumstances. Under the 3 4 circumstances presented here, the motion to waive the physical office requirement (Dkt. # 108) 5 is DENIED. 6 7 8 Dated this 27th day of January, 2025. 9 10 Robert S. Lasnik United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 23 25 26 27 28 ORDER - 3

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?