Free Brief - District Court of California - California

Case 3:08-cv-01896-PJH

Document 22

Filed 05/09/2008

Page 1 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Neil Gieleghem CSBN 107389 Gieleghem Law Office 1875 Century Park East, Suite 700 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 284-3252 Telecopier: (310) 284-3253 [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiff Nicholas H. Parker

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 TO THIS HONORABLE COURT, AND TO ALL PARTIES AND COUNSEL OF 21 RECORD: 22 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Plaintiff hereby objects to the pro hac vice admission 23 of Scott M. Moore pursuant to the Order Granting Application for Admission of Attorney Pro 24 Hac Vice entered by the Court (Hon. Joseph C. Spero) on or about April 17, 2008, on the 25 following grounds: 26 Plaintiff was not served timely with Application for Admission of Attorney Pro Hac Vice 27 reportedly filed by Scott M. Moore on or about April 14, 2008. Instead, Plaintiff obtained a copy 28
1

NICHOLAS H. PARKER, an individual,

) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) SCOTT MICHAEL MOORE, an individual; ) MOORE INTERNATIONAL LAW OFFICES, ) A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a ) California corporation; MOORE ) INTERNATIONAL LAW OFFICES, A ) PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, a business ) entity, form unknown; DOES 1 through 20, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) )

CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01896-PJH Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton OBJECTION TO PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SCOTT M. MOORE Date: Time: Courtroom: Wednesday, June 4, 2008 9:00 a.m. Courtroom 3, 17th Floor

[Nb. Filed with Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, and Objections to Declaration of Scott M. Moore]

OBJECTION TO PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SCOTT M. MOORE, CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01896-PJH

Case 3:08-cv-01896-PJH

Document 22

Filed 05/09/2008

Page 2 of 4

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

of said Application, via the PACER system, only after the Court entered its April 17, 2008 Order granting the Application. Accordingly, Plaintiff had no opportunity to lodge an objection to said Application. This Court's Civil Local Rule governing pro hac vice admission provides, in pertinent part: (b) Disqualification from pro hac vice appearance. Unless authorized by an Act of Congress or by an order of the assigned judge, an applicant is not eligible for permission to practice pro hac vice if the applicant: (I) resides in the State of California; or (ii) is regularly engaged in the practice of law in the State of California. This disqualification shall not be applicable if the pro hac vice applicant (I) has been a resident of California for less than one year; (ii) has registered with, and completed all required applications for admission to, the State Bar of California; and (iii) has officially registered to take or is awaiting his or her results from the California State Bar exam. Civil L.R. 11-3(b)(underlining added). The gravamen of the Complaint in this action is that Moore engaged in the unlicensed practice of law in the State of California from 2001 through 2007, in the guise of an "international lawyer." As Plaintiff understands his position, Moore does not deny that he practiced law in California as alleged. Instead, Moore's defense, to the extent it is intelligible, is that Moore did not have to be admitted to the California Bar because he was practicing as an "international lawyer." Moore's "international lawyer" theory is at odds with controlling California law.1 But
1

25 26 27 28

See, e.g., Bluestein v. State Bar, 13 Cal.3d 162, 174 (1974)("Giving legal advice [in California] regarding the law of a foreign country . . . constitutes the practice of law"; such legal advice by non-admitted attorney constitutes the unlicensed practice of law within the meaning of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6125); Birbrower, Montalbano, Condon & Frank, P.C. v. Superior Court, 17 Cal.4th 119 (1998)(New York lawyers, not admitted in California, engaged in illegal practice of law when advising California client, in California).
2

OBJECTION TO PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SCOTT M. MOORE, CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01896-PJH

Case 3:08-cv-01896-PJH

Document 22

Filed 05/09/2008

Page 3 of 4

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

even if Moore could practice "international law" in California, his years of prior practice in California ­ which practice is, for all Plaintiff knows, continuing to this day ­ bars Moore from pro hac vice admission to this Court. Accordingly, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court re-address this issue, and bar Moore from admission pro hac vice. Respectfully submitted. Dated: May 9, 2008 GIELEGHEM LAW OFFICE

s/ Neil Gieleghem Neil Gieleghem Attorneys for Plaintiff Nicholas H. Parker

3

OBJECTION TO PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SCOTT M. MOORE, CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01896-PJH

Case 3:08-cv-01896-PJH

Document 22

Filed 05/09/2008

Page 4 of 4

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

PROOF OF SERVICE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) ) ss. )

I am a resident of the State of California; over the age of 18 years; and not a party to the within action; and my business address is: 1875 Century Park East, Suite 300, Los Angeles, California 90067. On May 9, 2008 I served the foregoing document described as: OBJECTION TO PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SCOTT M. MOORE [X] (BY MAIL ) By placing the true copies of the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope, fully prepaid, addressed to the recipient(s) listed below. I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Los Angeles, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in said affidavit. (BY FAX) By transmitting, on this date, via facsimile, the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth above. (BY EXPRESS MAIL) By placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed Overnight Express envelope and affixing a pre-paid air bill, and causing the envelope to be delivered to an Overnight Express agent for delivery. (BY ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION) By transmitting via electronic mail the document(s) listed above to each recipient listed below. (BY PERSONAL SERVICE) I delivered such envelope by hand to the office of the addressee.

[] 13 14 15 16 17 [ ] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 [] [ ]

Scott Michael Moore, Esq. Moore International Law Offices, P.C. 45 Rockefeller Plaza, Suite 2000 (630 5th Avenue, Suite 2000) New York, New York 10111 Tel: (212) 322-3474 Fax: (212) 332-3475 [email protected] Attorneys for Defendants I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California, and the United States of America, that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 9, 2008, in Los Angeles, CA.

26 27 28
i

s/ Neil Gieleghem Neil Gieleghem

OBJECTION TO PRO HAC VICE ADMISSION OF SCOTT M. MOORE, CASE NO. 3:08-CV-01896-PJH