Free Order - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01896-PJH

Document 31

Filed 05/27/2008

Page 1 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 The Court has received an Objection to Pro Hac Vice Admission of Scott M. Moore (the "objection") as counsel for Defendants. Defendants filed a response to the objection. The objection was referred to the undersigned for resolution. Civil Local Rule 11 ­ 3 (b) bars the admission pro hac vice, without order of the assigned judge, of an attorney, who "is regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of California." Plaintiff asserts that Scott Michael Moore, who was admitted pro hac vice by order of this Court, "regularly engages" in the practice of law in the State of California. The only basis for this contention is the allegations contained in the complaint in this matter that Moore, without a license, represented the Plaintiff in connection with a particular matter, and did so within the State of California. In response, Mr. Moore filed a declaration swearing that he is not engaged in the practice of law in California. Mr. Moore also indicates that he has not maintained an office in California since before the date on which the complaint in this matter was filed, March 14, 2008. The objection is not well taken and is overruled. Civil local rule 11 ­ 3 only bars admission pro hac vice of attorneys who "regularly" engage in practice of law in California. The record in this matter does not disclose that Mr. Moore "regularly" practices in the state. First, the allegations of the complaint are just that ­ ­ allegations. They have not been proven at this point in the litigation. v. SCOTT M. MOORE, ET AL., Defendant. ____________________________________/ NICHOLAS H. PARKER, Plaintiff, No. C 08-01896 PJH ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTION TO PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SCOTT M. MOORE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 3:08-cv-01896-PJH

Document 31

Filed 05/27/2008

Page 2 of 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Second, the complaint alleges that Mr. Moore represented the Plaintiff on one particular matter. The fact of representation of a particular client with respect to a particular matter in California does not establish that the attorney "regularly" practices in the state. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: May 27, 2008 __________________________ JOSEPH C. SPERO United States Magistrate Judge

2