Holman v. Bath & Body Works, LLC

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KIANDRA HOLMAN, Case No. 1:20-cv-01603-NONE-SAB

Plaintiff, ORDER REQUIRING WILLIAM M. HOGG TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING IN v. SUPPORT OF HIS PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION BATH & BODY WORKS, LLC, et al., SEVEN DAY DEADLINE Defendants.

Currently before the court is an application for admission to practice pro hac vice under the provisions of Local Rule 180(b)(2) of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for this District filed by William M. Hogg. On December 23, 2020, Mr. Hogg filed the application along with an opposition to Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Based on review of the opposition and the declaration filed by Mr. Hogg it appears that Mr. Hogg is actively involved as Plaintiff’s attorney in prosecuting the case. The Local Rules of the Eastern District of California provide that an attorney is ineligible to appear and participate in a particular case pro hac vice if any of the following apply: “(i) the attorney resides in California, (ii) the attorney is regularly employed in California, or (iii) the attorney is regularly engaged in professional activities in California.” L.R. 180(b)(2). Mr. Hogg lists three other cases in which he has made application to be admitted to practice pro hac vice in this District in recent years: Franklin v. Community Medical Centers, Case No. 1:19-cv-00709- LJO-SKO (E.D. Cal.) (application approved June 27, 2019); Franklin v. San Joaquin General Hospital, Case No. 2:19-cv-00907-JAM-DB (E.D. Cal.) (application approved June 26, 2019); and Sousa v. Walmart, Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-0500-DAD-EPG (E.D. Cal.) (application approved December 1, 2020). The Court notes that review of the docket shows that Mr. Hogg has filed documents and appeared at hearings for the plaintiff in Franklin v. San Joaquin General Hospital, 2:19-cv-00907-JAM-DB. Upon examination of Court records, in the past several years Mr. Hogg has also applied for an application to be admitted to practice pro hac vice in California in Garcia v. Great Wolf Resort Holdings, Inc., Case No. 8:20-cv-00695-JLS-KESA (S.D. Cal.) (application approved April 14, 2020); Taylor v. Eclipse Senior Living, Case No. 3:20-cv-00190-LAB-WVG (S.D. Cal.) (application approved July 15, 2020); Archuleta v. ContextLogic, Inc., Case No. 4:20-cv- 04331-SBA (N.D. Cal.) (application approved July 17, 2020); Britt v. ContextLogic, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-04333-WHA (N.D. Cal.) (application approved July 17, 2020); Nguyen v. EOS IT Management Solutions, Inc., Case No. 5:17-cv-03604-EJD (N.D. Cal.) (application approved May 2, 2018); Palega v. The Property Sciences Group, Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-00855-WHA (N.D. Cal.) (application approved February 24, 2017); and Swamy v. Title Source Inc., Case No. 3:17-cv-01175-WHA (N.D. Cal) (application approved May 18, 2017). The Court notes that the record demonstrates that Mr. Hogg was actively engaged in litigating the current action as well as Franklin 2:19-cv-00907-JAM-DB (filing documents and appearing at motion hearing), Archuleta, 4:20-cv-04331-SAB (filing signed documents in the record); Britt, 2:30-cv-04333-WHA (filing signed documents and appearing at case management conference and hearing on motion to compel arbitration for plaintiff); and Palega, 3:17-cv- 00855-WHA (filing signed documents in the record and signing settlement agreement). The Supreme Court has described a pro hac vice attorney as one time or occasional practitioners. Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U.S. 641, 647 (1987). The right to appear pro hac vice is not absolute and a court may deny the application by setting forth reasons for the denial. United States v. Ries, 100 F.3d 1469, 1471-72 (9th Cir. 1996). In addressing whether an attorney has physically appeared before the district court, signed pleadings, and had contact with the plaintiffs, whether an attorney licensed in California remained the sole attorney responsible to the plaintiff, and whether the attorney rendered legal advice to the client. Winterrowd v. Am. Gen. Annuity Ins. Co., 556 F.3d 815, 825 (9th Cir. 2009). Upon review of the records of the court, it appears that Mr. Hogg may be regularly engaged in professional activities in California. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, within seven (7) days of the date of entry of this order, Mr. Hogg shall file supplemental briefing addressing his representation of the plaintiffs in each of the above referenced action. ? | IT IS SO ORDERED. EF Ef ae Dated: _ December 29, 2020 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE